Bibliographic record
Abstract
At first blush, it seems far-fetched, even perverse, to suggest an affinity between Thoreau and Nietzsche. Although a neighbour is said to have described Thoreau as a “dirty little atheist” (Harding, Handbook 141), in general there is little trace of the Antichrist in New England transcendentalism. Yet, it was the American critic Joseph Wood Krutch, writing in the 1940s, who first commented on the striking similarities between the extreme vitality of Thoreau’s prose, which represents nature as beyond moral considerations, and Nietzsche’s more uncompromising vision of life beyond good and evil.2 Krutch’s observations suggest some merit in reading Thoreau with the more philosophically acute observations of his German contemporary in mind. Not only do Nietzsche’s writings explain some of the difficulties in Thoreau’s work, most notably this tension between the wild and the good in his view of nature, they also show Thoreau to be on the same philosophical road as Nietzsche, rejecting the decadence of his nervous and bustling nineteenth century in favour of an individualistic ideal of health and vitality that requires, in Nietzsche’s words, “good teeth” and a “strong stomach” (Gay Science 63).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".