MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996397277 · doi:10.7202/1011810ar

Clarissa and the Concept of Tragedy: The Death of Lovelace

2012· article· fr· W1996397277 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hollis Rinehart

Bibliographic record

VenueMan and Nature · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyTragedy (event)HumanitiesOperaArtArt historyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clarissa de Richardson fait apparaître deux théories de la tragédie qui sont partiellement opposées : la théorie didactique qui véhicule un enseignement moral moyennant l’attrait d’une histoire qui plaît, et la théorie affective, d’origine aristotélienne, selon laquelle le public doit être amené à éprouver pitié et crainte. La fin de la vie de Clarissa et sa mort édifiante illustrent la théorie didactique, tandis que la mort de Lovelace excite la crainte du spectateur, si elle ne réussit pas à susciter sa pitié, et correspond donc davantage à l’idée moderne du tragique.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.049
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMan and NatureSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207