MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Thematic Meaning of Of Mice and Men

2010· article· en· W1941174399 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
XU Xiang-hui

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)HumanitiesDestiny (ISS module)ArtPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper illustrates the thematic meaning of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men from the metaphorical meaning of the title, namely, men and mice have the same destiny,and nobody has the capability to change his destiny. Key words: thematic meaning , metaphorical meaning, destiny Resume La solitude, le bien et le mal, le conflit des classes, ces points de vue ne peuvent pas tous reveler completement le sens thematique de Des souris et des hommes. A partir de la signification mehaphorique du titre, cet article interprete le sens thematique du roman, a savoir que les hommes et les souris ont la meme destinee et qu’aucun ne peut echapper a sa destinee. Mots cles : le sens thematique, la signification metaphorique, la destinee 摘 要 “孤獨論” 、“善惡論”和“階級衝突說”都不能全面揭示《人鼠之間》真正的主題意義。本文從這部小說標題的隱喻意義切入,闡釋了小說的主題意義,即人與鼠有著相同的命運,任何人也無法擺脫命運的 支配。 關鍵詞:主題意義; 隱喻意義;命運

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicAmerican Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207