Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emily Dickinson has been called “a major metaphysical poet of the nineteenth century” (Thota 161) and even, “if any nineteenth-century writer can be called this, the American metaphysical” (Keller 203). In recent years, criticism of Dickinson has tended to focus more on investigating aspects of her immediate historical context than on exploring her use of the conventions of metaphysical poetry, but the question of whether or not she can usefully be considered a metaphysical poet is worth raising once more.1 Does she think about ideas in ways that are distinctly metaphysical? Does she explore techniques that are specifically metaphysical? She frequently engages with both metaphysical ideas and metaphysical techniques, and she is often, if not always, a metaphysical poet. Reading her poems in light of the characteristics of metaphysical poetry shows how her work is connected with the larger tradition of this complex approach to questions about the nature of existence. Metaphysical poetry is not limited to the seventeenth century, any more than the ontological and cosmological questions it addresses are limited. Several critics have identified Dickinson’s poetry as metaphysical, and by investigating what definitions they have used, it will be possible to examine in what sense she can be called a metaphysical poet.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".