An Integrated Approach for the Study of Symbolically Inspired Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an essential work to any individual who is involved in trying to comprehend the literary, creative process. This article represents a bifurcation of literary art in terms of how this kind of creation is either derived from the subconscious of the artist, or represents, in platonic terms, the fusion of self with ineffable mental machinations. Theorists like Coleridge, Karl Jung and Shelley postulated paradigms where literary art was either created purely from the practitioners’ subconscious mental activities or were muse-driven to where the artist abandoned all aspects of his or her psychological dynamics. This work is an essential reading for anyone in literary criticism who is interested in the mystical dimensions of sublime creation as well as Neoplatonism. The author creates a theoretical model where visionary artists are capable of a deeper coalescence with subtle energy dynamics which is not understood by conventional neuroscience. The true man is the source he being the poetic genius… No man can think write or speak from his heart, but he must intend truth… As non by traveling over known lands can find out the unknown, so from already acquired knowledge man could not acquire more. Therefore a universal poetic genius exists… (Blake, 1790, pp.2-3). No, lead me where some heavenly silence glasses the purer joys. That rounds the poet throng… (Goethe, 1962, p.45). The poets eye in a find frenzy rolling,/doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven,/and as imagination bodies forth/ the forms of things unknown, the poets pen/ turnes them to shapes, and gives to aire nothing a local habitation and a name./Such tricks hath strong imagination… (Shakespeare, 1952, p.536).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".