MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034749028

Wise Women and Witches: Women and the Supernatural in Nineteenth-century Scottish Writing

2023· dissertation· en· W7034749028 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScotsFemininityIdeologyPower (physics)EthnographyCriticismNegotiationNarrative
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation foregrounds the relationship between women and the supernatural in nineteenth-century Scottish writing. Writers of both fictive and non-fictive texts used the supernatural to explore ideologies about gender. I argue that many used the supernatural to explore issues of power, agency, and consent, particularly with regards to women’s rights, roles, and responsibilities in nineteenth-century Scotland. Authors and collectors ultimately suggested that women held power in their speech, craft, and bodies – though they debated the extent of those powers.
\nI argue that writers and collectors used the supernatural to explore both seventeenth- and nineteenth-century ideologies about gender and suggest that both were concerned with issues of cultural identity, agency, and consent. Renewing their focus on the witch-hunts, nineteenth-century writers centered both women and the supernatural at the heart of this discussion. Nineteenth-century Scots sought to distance themselves from their “superstitious” ancestors while also celebrating these unique and “authentic” representations of Scottish culture. 
\nI explore two case studies of ethnographic writing by women, suggesting that women writers often had to navigate criticism focused on their gender rather than the merits of their work. Women writers had to perform femininity carefully – creating their authority while maintaining their reputations. Women contributed to the development of the genre, and their writing reflects several shared concerns: (super)natural landscapes, religion and “superstition.” and marriage. 
\nExamining representations of women as storytellers reveals that many collectors or authors who constructed these representations were negotiating who should have power over which stories were told and how stories were received. Editors, collectors, translators, and authors emphasize or deemphasize their presence to control cultural narratives – including narratives about gender.
\nI argue that collectors and writers turned to nineteenth-century texts which used female figurations of the supernatural to explore how women’s powers were embodied. (Re)contextualizing nineteenth-century writing that claimed to document beliefs about the supernatural alongside fictive material shows how these texts were used to legitimise or de-legitimise movements and arguments, supporting or detracting from value systems. These texts suggest that women held power in their bodies, crafts, and speech, but that they had to negotiate use of these powers carefully.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207