MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7165761070 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2025.a993442

Missing Members in Charlotte Yonge's The Clever Woman of the Family

2025· article· en· W7165761070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katharine Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiegeContext (archaeology)Ideal (ethics)MasculinityResistance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This essay examines the potential of touch as a vehicle for offering spiritual care in Charlotte Yonge's The Clever Woman of the Family (1865). By bringing together disability studies, Victorian religious cultural history, and the global context of the novel, it opens up ideas of disability, gender, community, and the divine. At the centre of this piece is a reading of the scene where Rachel Curtis, the novel's failed feminist reformer, encounters the scarred, partially amputated hand of Alick Keith, a soldier wounded during the Siege of Delhi in the Indian uprising (1857). This essay contends that Alick's scarred hand aligns him with Christ and the tradition of sacrificial suffering. Yonge casts the disabled soldier as the ideal protector of Christian community, bending ideals of masculinity in the process. Through tactile encounters, the novel charts Rachel's transformation, from her individual resistance to her growing membership in an interdependent Christian community. Ultimately, this essay demonstrates that hands—hands that are scarred, wounded, violent, caring, and touching—illuminate what threatens, protects, and forms community. Clever Woman construes touch as a vital entryway into a spiritual community, one which must depend on all members, further advocating for the integral nature of disability to a vision of God.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207