MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074040589 · doi:10.3138/cras-s031-01-02

Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Constitution of Identity in The Wings of the Dove

2001· article· en· W2074040589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gert Buelens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetonymyMetaphorContext (archaeology)PhilosophyIdentity (music)Character (mathematics)ContradictionLinguisticsArtLiteratureAestheticsHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In The Prison-House of Language, Fredric Jameson writes Language has of necessity recourse to indirection, to substitution: … it must replace [an] empty center of content with something else, and it does so either by saying what the content is like (metaphor), or describing its context and the contours of its absence, listing the things that border around it (metonymy). Thus language, by its very nature, is either analogical or fetishistic….” (122–23) The phrase “empty center of content” is a particularly suggestive one when applied to Henry James’s novel The Wings of the Dove. It is easily reminiscent of the young woman around whose “really larger vagueness,” in the words of a wholly sympathetic character, the novel’s action revolves (James, Wings 82). Criti­cal interpretations that regard Milly as an essentially “empty” quantity are legion, some finding fault with her for being “too much like emptiness.” “She isn’t there,” F.R. Leavis complains, “and the fuss the other characters make about her … has the effect of an irritating sentimentality”(183).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.039
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207