Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rose for Emily is regarded as the most famous short story written by William Faulker. Emily, the protagonist of the story, leads a tragic life. This paper contends that the main cause to her tragedy is her inharmonious relations with the society. Accordingly, this paper analyzes the relationship between Emily and the officials of the town, her father, the town residents and her relatives. Consequently, this paper concludes that the underlining reason for Emily’s tragedy is her failure in social relations. Key words: Emily, tragedy, inharmonious Resume Une rose pour Emily est considere comme la plus connue nouvelle de William Faulker. L’heroine Emily mene une vie tragequi. L’auteur pense que c’est ses relations inharmonieuses avec la societe qui cause sa tragedie. Donc, cet article analyse les relaltions inharmonieuses entre Emily et les officiers du bourg, son pere, les habitants du bourg et ses parents, et signale que la raison profonde de la tragedie d’Emily reside dans l’echec de ses relations sociales. Mots cles: Emily, la tragedie, inharmonieux 摘 要 《獻給愛米麗的玫瑰》被認為是威廉•福克納昀著名的短篇小說。小說女主人公愛米麗具有濃重的悲劇色彩。本文認為導致愛米麗悲劇的是她周圍社會的不和諧的關係。有鑒於此，本文分析了女主人公愛米麗與鎮上官員、其父親、鎮上居民以及其親戚的種種不和諧的關係，從而指出社會關係的失敗是導致愛米麗 悲劇的深刻原因。 關鍵詞： 愛米麗；悲劇；不和諧
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".