John Keats’s and Suhrab Sipihri’s Poems in the Light of Objective Correlative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What Eliot meant by objective correlative was the conversion of emotions, not through expression, but an outer correlative of inner feelings – this kind of evoking emotion in the preserver can transparently correspond with Keats’s theory of impersonality. For Keats, the process of poetic perception includes the poet’s sympathetic identification with natural objects during moments of intense observation when the poet loses himself into an object, experiencing the details of the object through heightened perceptions and intuiting qualities or realities of the object not otherwise perceived – an oft-cited example is Keats’s odes. Amazingly, this hypothesis about Keats’s theory of impersonality or simply objective correlative can be equated and aligned with the term called ‘abstraction’ and its prominent exponent, Suhrab Sipihri in Persian literature. Considering such a perspective in mind, the present study is to foreground the manifestation of the terms impersonality and abstraction or simply objective correlative in the poetical vocations of Keats and Sipihri who lived in two remote continents of the world: Asia and Europe. Key words: Objective Correlative; Abstraction; Eliot; Sipihri; Emotion; Perception
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".