MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7144151775 · doi:10.15020/00002144

Agnes Repplier’s Anglophilia: The Half Century of the “American Austen”

2021· article· ja· W7144151775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
健司 鈴木, Kenji S. Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperCriticismQuarter (Canadian coin)EnthusiasmIndependence (probability theory)Literary criticismReputationNationalismPrint culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agnes Repplier, an American essayist and critic born in Philadelphia, wrote for more than a half-century from the late 19th to the early 20th century. Her writings appeared in almost every major magazine and newspaper and gained a wide range of readership and a high reputation in the United States. Some call Repplier the “American Austen,” after her favorite English novelist, as she stayed single her whole life and sometimes dealt with women’s life from a literary perspective. Repplier loved literary works by English authors, from the last quarter of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th in particular, which she called “a happy half-century.” She put a high value on realism in literature, but Anglophilia also held a prominent position in her set of values. As a result, she didn’t go along with William Dean Howells, an ardent advocate of realism, because he often described the English nation pejoratively. In contrast with a keen interest in English literature, Repplier showed little enthusiasm for her countrymen’s works, which evoked staunch criticism from those who aimed for due recognition of American literature. How Repplier’s contemporary Americans accepted her writings gives a promising clue as to American nationalism in this period, when cultural independence is a critical issue a century after the birth of the United States.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207