Literary Representations of Kaspar Hauser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kaspar Hauser affair provided rich material for popular writers and versifiers who titillated their readers with horrifying accounts of this grim story and edifying verses on his spiritual journey from cellar to altar. 1 More serious authors also turned their attention to the case. The great romantic poet Joseph von Eichendorff referred to it in a letter to Theodor von Schön, written on 10 January 1834, in which he sent his new year’s greetings. For Eichendorff the Kaspar Hauser affair was symptomatic of the wretchedness of the times. He had been deeply touched by the news of Kaspar Hauser’s death and was outraged at the suggestion that he might have been a fraud and that he had committed suicide as an attention-seeking device. He referred to Baron von Lang’s article in the Brockhausschen Blättern für literarische Unterhaltung of 4 January 1834 in which Lang presented this argument. Eichendorff frequently met Hitzig at his Sunday literary soirées and was sad to report that such was Hitzig’s respect for Lang that he had decided to suspend judgment on the Kaspar Hauser case until further evidence was available. Hitzig had previously been enormously impressed by Feuerbach’s pamphlet and showed a considerable interest in the case and published a considerable amount of material on it in his criminological journal. Eichendorff argued that if Lang were to be proven correct then the times were even more out of joint than he thought. 2 These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".