MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995971694 · doi:10.3138/utq.83.4.780

Frye and Hegel

2014· article· en· W1995971694 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAyn Rand and Brontë studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegelianismLogos Bible SoftwareDialecticPhilosophyPhenomenology (philosophy)MetaphorLiteratureOpposition (politics)EpistemologyLinguisticsArtTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article traces the influence of Hegel upon Frye’s thought, beginning with the extraordinary paper he wrote on romanticism as a twenty-year-old undergraduate and continuing through his two books on the Bible, The Great Code and Words with Power and his posthumously published The Double Vision. It seeks to demonstrate what Frye means by saying, “If Hegel had written his Phenomenology in mythos-language instead of in logos-language a lot of my work would be done for me.” Particular attention is paid to the ways the Hegelian notion of Aufhebung plays out in Frye’s dialectic, which characteristically works to resolve the opposition between two categories. The article also considers the importance of the ladder metaphor in both Hegel and Frye.

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.

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 score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.146 · 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