Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical readings of The Go-Between often relate its depiction of sexuality, class and gender to the symbolism with which the author is frequently identified. Such connections can be further illuminated by considering T.S. Eliot’s notion of the “mythical method”. Hartley’s narrator seems to make extensive use of a personalised version of the “method” advocated by the poet. Mapping his world onto the Zodiac, Leo’s use of the “mythical method” enables him – at least for a short while – to order and control his experience. Initially offering him the mastery he craves, this method eventually renders Leo more vulnerable to the dramas that unfold around him. Once the integrity of his mythic structure is threatened, Leo’s own disintegration is assured. Given his absolute faith in the Zodiac, Leo comes only belatedly to recognise a different mythic parallel at work in his life. This other doubling sees Leo’s fate twinned with that of Icarus. Eventually acknowledged by Leo himself, this figure demonstrates Hartley’s on going concern with both method and myth and therefore suggests that his narrative – like its central protagonist, can offer the reader a critical perspective on the workings of each. Key words: Mythical method; Mythic doubles; Icarus; Zodiac; Mercury; Mastery; Structure; Order; Hierarchy; The fall
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".