Modernity in Two Great American Writers’ Vision: Ernest Miller Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, American memorable novelists have had philosophic ideas about modernity. In fact their idea about existential interests of American, and the effects of American system on society, is mirrored in their creative works. All through his early works, Fitzgerald echoes the existential center of his era. Obviously, we recognize Hemingway’s vision of modernity in formation of his own philosophies of life, death, and art in what is known as Hemingway’s characteristic philosophy, Code, and Code Heroes. In this article, among the numerous characteristics illuminating these two writer’s vision of America, the main themes of their foremost works have been analyzed with regard to some Critic’s viewpoints regarding these two, literary masters. Critics see Fitzgerald both as a chronicler, and a perceptive social critic who is totaling the “dilemmas of philosophy” in his art. Indeed, what in American critics’ view is a fatalistic philosophy, with the darker side of life, existentialist critics consider as a prophetic optimism and an absurdist vision that places Hemingway in the ranks of a “guide “prophet of those who are without faith”.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".