MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1644363198

FROM CRADLE TO CRADLE

2015· dissertation· en· W1644363198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuetedprints (TED Ankara College Foundation Schools) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGray (unit)NarrativeIdeologyTheme (computing)LiteratureAestheticsArtPsychoanalysisPsychologyPoliticsLawComputer sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Peter and Wendy” and “The Picture of Dorian Gray” are stylistically distinct novels; however, they are both built on the protagonists’ desire to be forever young. This is a study on the relation that can be drawn between the ways Barrie and Wilde deal with the concept of eternal youth, leading to the research question: Does J. M. Barrie in “Peter and Wendy” approach the concept of eternal youth the same way as Oscar Wilde in “The Picture of Dorian Gray”? 
\nAfter introducing the theme of youth and the novels’ plots, this essay will be divided into three main sections dealing with the novels’ protagonists, social dynamics and narrative styles. In the first section, Peter Pan and Dorian Gray will be compared as the subjects of eternal youth in the novels. The effects of eternal youth on these characters will be discussed. The second section will contain the evaluation of side characters and social dynamics of the novels with regards to their effects on the presentation of the concept of everlasting youth. Then, the narrative styles of the books will be compared in order to completely differentiate between the ways Barrie and Wilde have chosen to write about the same subject.
\nIn the conclusion it is proved that while “Peter and Wendy” and “The Picture of Dorian Gray” contain similar critical ideologies against the concept of eternal youth, the writers set up very different plots and characters to show their approaches.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.015

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetedprints (TED Ankara College Foundation Schools)Same topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207