Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whitman influenced greatly on modern Arabic poetry in general and its prose poetry in particular through Gibran Khalil Gibran, the most famous and important Arabic immigrant poet that had ever lived in America for a long time. We can find in Gibran and Whitman’s works that they shared strong similarity in their poetics and thoughts. Gibran’s prose poetry, first of all, is of the same origin as Whitman’s in his creative language. Both of them are adept at creating original images by ingenious combination of words. In the second place, just like Whitman’s poetry, Gibran’s works possess an awfully aesthetic sense of music. Like Whitman, Gibran uses graceful rhythm to manifest musical aesthetic feeling in his production. In the third place, both of Whitman and Gibran are good at using colors. Some of their poems are almost a collection of colors. Gibran and Whitman also express some similar thoughts in their works. Both of them did not advocate the tradition so much Gibran is as sharp as Whitman in his rebellious spirit. Also, it is very explicit that both of Whitman and Gibran are mystic. We’ll focus our discussion on their characteristics of pantheism and natural occultism. Keywords: Walt Whitman, Gibran Khalil Gibran, Arabic Immigrant Poem, prose poetry Resume: Gibran Khalil Gibran, comme d’autres poetes et ecrivains arabes immigres aux Etats-Unis, fut influence par la litterature americaine, notamment par les proses poetiques de Walt Whitman. La creation litteraire de ces deux grands ecrivains fait preuve d’une grande affinite en innovation linguistique, musicalite textuelle, jeu de couleurs, esprit de revolte et recherche du mystique en constituant une parfaite illustration de la communication et les convergences entre la litterature orientale et la litterature occidentale, et surtout celle de l’acceptation de la derniere par la precedente. Mots-cles: Walt Withman, Gibran Khalil Gibran, Litterature arabe immigrante aux Etats-Unis, Proses poetiques
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".