MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1979008848 · doi:10.1080/00085006.2011.11092666

The Tolstoy Marriage Revisited—Many Times

2011· article· en· W1979008848 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hugh McLean

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueRussian Literature and Bakhtin Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScrutinyWifeNothingLiteratureCharacter (mathematics)MemoirHistoryArtPhilosophyTheology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IThe of Lev Nikolaevich (hereafter LN) and Sofia Andreevna (hereafter SA) Tolstoy has long served as a cynosure, an alluring subject, not so much for literary scholars as for professional writers with an eye for engaging reallife material, as emotion-rich as any novel. One need not even know Russian, Russia or Russian literature. The main primary sources, his diaries and her diaries, their correspondence, most of the memoirs of their children, other close relatives, secretaries, disciples, and friends have all been conveniently translated into English. It might as well be Dickens' s or Mark Twain's marriage under scrutiny. The cast of characters is alluring: a supremely great novelist turned prophet in his later years, his much younger wife, a woman of strong character and very considerable culture, a devoted companion during much of their life together, conscientious and loving mother of their thirteen (!) children, of whom only eight lived to adulthood. In the early years their relationship oscillated between passionate tenderness and very occasional sharp conflicts, but the strife greatly increased in the later, prophetic years, whose aims and substance SA did not share.The action is gripping and its denouement affecting, even tragic. After completing two of the world's greatest novels LN decided that novel- writing was too trivial an occupation for a man of his stature and ambitions. Writing fiction was nothing more than providing entertainments for a class of largely idle educated people, who in Russia were parasites on the backs of the huge, mostly illiterate mass of the peasantry. LN too was such a parasite, but at least he recognized the fact, and it troubled his conscience. So he sought a higher purpose to his life, indeed the highest conceivable. By the power of his pen he undertook to save mankind, to show humanity the way out of the cruel, senseless mess of their lives. His wife, SA, had hitherto fulfilled well her multiple roles - the great man's sexual partner; mother, nursemaid and tutor to their numerous offspring; manager of his household and their servants; model for some of his most entrancing female characters; and finally a tireless amanuensis who spent her evenings and sometimes nights making fair copies of the texts he had produced during the day, often revised and recopied again and again. All these roles she performed efficiently and with devotion, and until his conversion she seemed satisfied with her very full life. She loved Tolstoy the man and revered Tolstoy the artist, but the new Tolstoy, Tolstoy the prophet, was alien to her. She simply could not follow him down this path.Their marriage, up to the completion of Anna Karenina, had been a generally happy one, rewarding and satisfying for both partners. SA, to be sure, had a much more difficult task of adaptation to perform. A city girl, brought up in Moscow, she had to adjust to country life with its relative isolation and inconveniences. At eighteen, she was suddenly in the position of mistress of a substantial household and its servants. And almost immediately she became pregnant, a condition she was in for an astonishing 1 17 months - nearly ten of the next thirty years. Add to that the months of nursing and infant care and one is amazed that she had any time or energy left to nurse her husband's novels. There were, to be sure, occasional tiffs between them, even in the best of times. LN was often demanding and inconsiderate, and SA sometimes felt overpowered and bullied. For example, inveighing against Russian ladies' common practice of hiring peasant wet nurses for their babies, LN insisted that SA should feed her children at her own breast, even when a case of mastitis made that task exceedingly painful. Ideology trumped sympathy. (She was later able to nurse most of their children.) On his side, he was disappointed that she showed so little interest in his school for peasant children (abandoned after their marriage) or in their peasant neighbours. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,059

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0210,016
Communication savante0,0090,004
Science ouverte0,0010,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Slavonic PapersMême sujetRussian Literature and Bakhtin StudiesTravaux en français237 207