MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Criticism of Evasion: The Non-literary Margins in T. S. Eliot’s Early Criticism

2010· article· en· W1947748421 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amer Hasan Al-Rashid, Nayef Ali Al-Joulan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismLiterary criticismArtHumanitiesMetaphysicsLiteraturePhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper traces the non-literary margins in the youthful criticism of T. S. Eliot, focusing exclusively on the early essays in which he assumes an aesthetic stand in his early years as a critic. In Tradition and Individual Talent, Function of Criticism, The Metaphysical Poets, besides other essays, Eliot pretends that literary appreciation/criticism can be practiced in isolation from any external influence, and that principles of criticism are purely literary in their origin as well as in their practice, that of establishing the value of the literary works. Relatedly, Eliot proposes that 'emotions', 'feelings' and 'experiences' in the literary work can be evaluated without connection to their non-literary margins. This paper explodes such claims by suggesting that non-literary margins dominated and shaped the early critical formulations and judgments of Eliot. Keywords: T. S. Eliot; Criticism; Literary Tradition; Margins Resume: Ce document retrace les marges non-litteraires dans les premieres critiques de T.S. Eliot, en se concentrant exclusivement sur les premiers essais dans lesquels il montre une position esthetique en tant que critique. Dans Tradition et talent individuel, Fonction de la critique, Les poetes metaphysiques et d'autres essais, Eliot pretend que l'appreciation/la critique litteraire peut etre pratiquee de facon isolee de toute influence exterieure, et que les principes de la critique sont purement litteraires non seulement dans leur origine mais aussi dans leur pratique, afin d'etablir les valeur des œuvres litteraires. En plus, Eliot propose que «emotions», «sentiments» et «experiences» dans les œuvres litteraires peuvent etre evalues sans connexion a leurs marges non-litteraires. Cet article etudie ces revendications en suggerant que les marges non-litteraires ont domine et faconne les premieres formulations de critiques et des jugements d'Eliot. Mots-cles: T.S. Eliot; critique; tradition litteraire; marges

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueCanadian social scienceSame topicFoucault, Power, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207