MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160997135 · doi:10.14288/canlit.vi263.200134

The Gloriously Ugly in Marian Engel's No Clouds of Glory (Sarah Bastard's Notebook)

2024· article· en· W7160997135 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Engbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSimone de Beauvoir and Sartre
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipGloryFemininityRomanceMythologyTrope (literature)BeautyConversation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses how the protagonist of Marian Engel’s first novel, No Clouds of Glory (1968) revises her roles in her past relationships to reimagine her future possibilities. The conversation in Engel’s novel, retitled Sarah Bastard’s Notebook when it was republished in 1974, reflects the author’s own anxiety about being a woman but also lends itself, almost sixty years after its first publication, to ongoing conversations about female bodies, gender identities, and sexuality. Scholarship about the novel has generally touched on nationality, gender and identity, and writing and feminism. More recent scholarship discusses the female professor trope in Canadian fiction written by women and imposter syndrome. Building on these conversations, this essay shifts attention to how romance in the novel attaches to what Engel’s protagonist experiences as “the ugly.” Engel, through her mode of critique and the novel’s irritated aesthetic, decentres beauty and patriarchal femininity as a woman’s sole measure of value. Moreover, Sarah’s abortions function as a ritual cleansing of the female-coded self, removing the sterile and potentially dangerous material of romance’s reproductive mythology from the body.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicSimone de Beauvoir and SartreFrench-language works237,207