MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474156453

"High Flying Liberty of Conceit" in the Poetry of Sir Philip Sidney and John Donne

2015· article· en· W2474156453 on OpenAlexaff
C. E. McGaughey

Bibliographic record

VenueVerso: An Undergraduate Journal of Literary Criticism · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonnetPoetryPrayerPhilosophyLiteratureSTELLA (programming language)ArtArt historyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early part of The Defense of Poesy , Sir Philip Sidney offers two different definitions of poetry, one emphasizing its metrical form in what he calls “an exquisite observing of number and measure in the words” and the other emphasizing its imaginative freedom or what he calls its “high flying liberty of conceit.” Clara deftly explores the tension in these differing emphases by offering a close reading of sonnets by Sidney and Donne. A sonnet’s meter is exquisitely demanding, and both poets employ it to impressive effect. But in both cases, the poem’s form is finally subordinate to a quite astonishingly imaginative liberty. As Clara shows, both sonnets deploy an interesting and unconventional handling of the sonnet’s standard turn or volta , which customarily appears at line 9.  In sonnet 5 of Astrophil and Stella , “It is most true that eyes are formed to serve / The inward light,” Sidney, or more properly speaking, Astrophil delays the volta until the last possible moment in line 14, setting his love for Stella in opposition to the Christian Neo-Platonism of the preceding 13 lines, a move that certainly highlights his “liberty,” even when it is not so high flying. Donne’s Holy Sonnet 18, “Show me, dear Christ, thy spouse” similarly delays its volta to line 11, with its shocking prayer: “Betray, kind husband, thy spouse to our sights.” This surprising treatment of an ultimate revelation of the true church as a kind of betrayal takes some obvious liberties, even as it aims to fly high. It is also a “conceit”; as Clara so skillfully shows: it makes you think. —Dr. John Baxter

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVerso: An Undergraduate Journal of Literary CriticismSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207