MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981210338

Dissolving Critiques: Capitalism and Space-time in the American Novel, 1888 - 1996

2021· dissertation· en· W6981210338 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTubulopathyTSG101Fusible alloyHyporeflexiaDemotion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dissolving Critiques examines the late nineteenth- and twentieth-century American
\nnovel’s critical engagement with the conditions of life under capitalism. Reading works of
\nrealism, naturalism, and utopian fiction through M.M. Bakhtin’s theory of the literary
\nchronotope, I argue that the novels under consideration render the capitalist production of
\nspace legible as a social injustice antithetical to the ideals of freedom and human flourishing
\nand represent capitalism’s transcendence as an imperative of reason. However, I also contend
\nthat these critiques risk dissolving, as the texts confront and inevitably fail to manage the
\nseemingly irresolvable problems inherent in their own progressive desires. In choosing
\n“dissolve” as a key term, I mean to highlight the term’s potential visual, “scenic” qualities, for
\nlike a film dissolve, the dissolving critique seems to offer one scene of possible alternative that
\nthen dissolves back into the original scene, as though unable to hold. In this sense, the
\ndissolving critique exposes the mechanisms of narrative failure. But although such dissolution
\ninevitably disappoints any progressive desires of a reader/critic such as myself, I also argue that
\neven when the critical image dissolves, a lingering sense of possible alternatives to capitalism
\nremains—like afterimages in a scene.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207