MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414997063 · doi:10.32396/pwdvke08

Indirect Inheritance

2025· article· en· W4414997063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erin Grace Paulhus

Bibliographic record

VenueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNovellaCharacter (mathematics)WishIgnoranceDaughterInheritance (genetic algorithm)Affect (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Jane Austen’s epistolary novella Lady Susan, Frederica appears through the biased descriptions of the letters that other characters write. However, in Letter 21, the only letter Frederica writes in the novella, she can explain herself in her own words. As Frederica tries to convince Reginald De Courcy to intervene in Lady Susan’s arranged marriage between Frederica and Sir James Martin, this letter is the closest access to Frederica’s true character in the text and therefore can serve as a basis of evidence for comparison between Frederica’s character and Lady Susan herself. Scholars often assume that Frederica’s qualities and outcomes simply oppose those of her mother. I wish to argue that Frederica takes after her “wicked” mother more than these scholars, and even Lady Susan herself realize. While Lady Susan disregards morality by engaging with its language, she indirectly mothers Frederica to become her likeness by disengaging with her role of motherhood or engaging with it in subversive ways. Lady Susan passes on her qualities to her daughter, who begins to write and use language to affect her fate, despite her mother’s ignorance that she does so. Lady Susan therefore indirectly gives her daughter the tools to achieve her desires within the novella’s social economy, despite how these desires conflict with Lady Susan’s own.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207