Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the very day of its publication in 1848, Wuthering Heights has provoked perplexity and confusion. In a literary scene acclimatized to realism, and to a moral realism which had as its recent history the ethico-religious traditions of allegory, Wuthering Heights came as something of a shock to contemporary readers. It was acknowledged to display “evidences of considerable power,” but was seen on the whole as “wild, confused, disjointed and improbable” ( Examiner , 8 Jan. 1848). On 22 January 1848, the Atlas reviewer found “ Wuthering Heights … a strange inartistic story.” Lacking in “unity and concentration,” it “is a sprawling story, carrying us, with no mitigation of anguish, through two generations of sufferers – though one presiding evil genius sheds a grim shadow over the whole, and imparts a singleness of malignity to the somewhat disjointed tale. A more natural unnatural story we do not remember to have read.” In the same month, the New Monthly Magazine reviewer found himself unable to refer to anything that could be compared to Brontë's novel. In the end, he could only refer to the world the novel represented as “a perfect misanthropist's heaven.” Many of the American reviews in the spring of 1848 are even more uncomprehending. “We rise from the perusal of Wuthering Heights as if we come fresh from a pest-house. Read Jane Eyre is our advice, but burn Wuthering Heights ” ( Paterson's Magazine , March 1948).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.254 | 0.125 |
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".