MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075338117 · doi:10.7202/013589ar

Byron and Shelley: Radical Incompatibles

2006· article· en· W2075338117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Cochran

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanticism on the Net · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudgementPoetryPoliticsPhilosophyLiteratureArtEpistemologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been written about the relationship between these two poets, but few have wondered – how compatible were they in reality, when their poetry, ethics, philosophy of life, and even politics, were so radically different? In this new essay Peter Cochran tries to take an unsentimental view of how Byron and Shelley related, in both social and literary terms. What did each really think of the other? Were they friends to the end? Did Shelley borrow anything from Byron’s verse, or Byron from Shelley’s? Cochran looks at these questions, taking in en route the relationship betweenAlastorandManfred, and – most controversially –AdonaisandThe Vision of Judgement. His conclusion is more disturbing than usual.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanticism on the NetSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207