Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past two decades scholars and researchers have studied a high degree of William Wordsworth poem andpoetic theory from various angles. William Wordsworth as the founder of British Romantic poet occupies animportant position in English literary history. His literary life, works and poetical theory in the later period of FrenchRevolution had given rise to various issues; however, some critics labeled him as a passive romantic because of hisresidence in the Lake District, which influenced readers for a long time.This paper positively analyses Wordsworth poems based on psycho-analysis theory to probe into the growth of thepoet mind, laying stress on the deep motive force and the profound implication of the Returning Complex inWordsworth’s turning after the French Revolution. Soul as the focus of collective unconsciousness manifests itself inthe primitive archetype. Soul presents itself in the Universe, in humankind and in nature. In the poet’s eyes, returningto Self is to returning to soul.In the light of Karl Jung’s theory, also by the analysis of his poems, a conclusion can be drawn that Wordsworth is amore positive fighter and psychological poet than an escapist. He finds a returning way to soul.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".