MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1634154683

The Persistent Whaleman: An Analysis on the Heroism of Capitan Ahab

2013· article· en· W1634154683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ren Chi, Yu Hao

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhalingAdventureLiteratureHarmony (color)CrueltyHistoryArtAestheticsPhilosophySociologyArt historyVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herman Melville is one of the most influential figures in the literature history of the world. He creates an overwhelming novel The Whaling or Moby Dick , which is considered as a bright pearl in the literary treasury of the world. He shapes a group of tragic heroes who dare to challenge and conquer nature. The novel Moby Dick tells a story of a whaling ship named Pequod and its impious, godlike man. Captain Ahab, whose obsessive search for the white whale Moby-Dick leads the ship Pequod and its crew to destruction. This piece of work, a realistic adventure novel, includes a chain of thinkings on the man’s living condition. Realistic recordations and descriptions of white whale and the whaling industry cast the book. The novel Moby Dick displays the author’s special knowledge, skills and rich experience. This paper focuses on the analysis of the main characters – Captain Ahab’s madness, cruelty and heroism, which finally led to his tragic fate. In this process, the theme is revealed: human beings should be in harmony with nature.The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the author’s descriptions of the contents and actions, appreciate the characteristics and fates of the main character, tap into the hidden significance, reflect the work’s artistic value, explore its great realistic meaning, and reveal Melville’s opinion on man and nature – they must be kept in harmony.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLiterary Theory and Cultural HermeneuticsFrench-language works237,207