Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article illuminates an important yet overlooked subhistory of emotion in the nineteenth century: the development of "violent emotion" as a category of intense emotional experience. Looking back from a key turning point in the history of psychological thought—William James's 1884 article "What is an Emotion?"—it begins by tracing the roots of the term in the seventeenth century to its use in two kinds of texts in the nineteenth century: medical literature and novels. It argues that whereas medical literature throughout this period remained convinced of the negative effects of violent emotion on the body and mind, mid-nineteenth-century novelists began to experiment instead with its productivities. In exploiting the elusive capaciousness of violent emotion, they were able to conceive of complicated psychological states that pushed the boundaries of definable emotion, and legitimize them, for the first time, within the affective lives of middle- and working-class characters. Tracing both signposted moments of violent emotion and their long-term effects on character psychology in three novels of the period, Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights (1847), George Eliot's Romola (1862), and Elizabeth Gaskell's Mary Barton (1848), this article accounts for the special relationship between violence, emotion, and narrative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".