Agnes Repplier’s Anglophilia: The Half Century of the “American Austen”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".