MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128359968 · doi:10.4000/lisa.85

Is Hopkins’ “The Windhover” about Christ? A Negative Response, with a Whimsical Postscript

2009· article· en· W2128359968 on OpenAlex
Joseph J. Feeney

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue LISA / LISA e-journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Literary Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On pense souvent que le célèbre sonnet de Hopkins « The Windhover » (1877), avec sa dédicace « Au Christ notre Seigneur », évoque autant le Christ que le faucon. Mais ce n’est qu’en 1884 que fut ajoutée la dédicace et le texte ne mentionne jamais le Christ. En outre, le poème peut parfaitement être compris comme une description du vol de l’oiseau comme un ravissement – d’abord sans heurts puis luttant contre le vent. Le spectateur admire l’oiseau et le trouve particulièrement glorieux dans sa lutte, le comparant à une charrue qui brille d’un vif éclat alors aux prises avec la terre et à de gris charbons ardents qui rougeoient quand ils se brisent en tombant dans l’âtre. Cette métaphore faite de trois éléments dans le sonnet célèbre donc la gloire de la lutte douloureuse et du triomphe sur l’adversité. Certains lecteurs ajoutent un quatrième élément à la métaphore – le Christ, mais le poème fait pleinement sens sans cet ajout, ce qui montre que le poème n’évoque finalement pas le Christ. Une dernière surprise : ce poème très grave est léger et enjoué dans l’incongruité comique des trois (ou quatre) éléments de la métaphore.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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