Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although D. H. Lawrence's stock has fallen in recent times there are now signs of a revival. Of all his works, Women in Love is widely regarded as the most complex and rewarding. Apart from the classic essay by Joyce Carol Oates, all the items collected in this volume were published after 1990. Written by scholars from the United Kingdom, France, Australia and Canada, as well as the United States, they illustrate both the way recent theoretical developments in literary studies can be made relevant to readings of Lawrence and the healthy persistence of traditional methods of analysis. They also reveal Women in Love as a twentieth century classic that continues to challenge its readers and refuses to be pigeonholed. College students will find this collection an invaluable aid in their efforts to come to terms with the novel and for those of their elders who admire Lawrence it will provide a convenient and interesting way of discovering the kind of reactions he has provoked in the last fifteen years. The collection also contains a photograph of the statuette that was quite clearly the inspiration of Lawrence's description of Loerke's Lady Godiva, along with a note from the scholar who has only very recently announced its discovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".