MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Artificial Creation and Procreation in Late-Victorian Short Fiction

2020· dissertation· W7149701799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zoé Hardy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThomas Hardy Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNovellaContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Object (grammar)Subjectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Création artificielle et procréation dans la fiction brève de la fin-de-siècle britannique Cette thèse examine les perceptions victoriennes du genre, de la sexualité, de la science, et de l’art, et interroge leur impact sur les représentations littéraires de la création artificielle. Le corpus d’analyse comprend un ensemble de nouvelles et de novellas publiées par H. G. Wells, R. L. Stevenson, Arthur Conan Doyle, Arthur Machen, Oscar Wilde, Henry James, et James Matthew Barrie. Ces récits sont caractérisés par une chorégraphie d’associations et de dissociations entre les sphères créatives et procréatives. L’acte de conception y est dépeint comme un projet strictement autonome et masculin. Ces représentations sont révélatrices des enjeux socio-politiques, esthétiques et philosophiques émergeant à la fin du dix-neuvième siècle britannique, alors que l’époque s’applique à (re)définir le potentiel créatif des hommes et des femmes. Cette étude conjugue plusieurs cadres théoriques : les études de genre, les études culturelles, et les théories sur la fiction brève, sont autant d’outils d’analyse visant à identifier les différents fils de réflexion convergeant autour de la question de la création, de sa valeur et de sa fonction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThomas Hardy Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207