MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476928069 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511676246.003

Sublime vision and self-derision: the aesthetics of death in Tolstoy

2010· book-chapter· en· W2476928069 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSublimeAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Death features prominently in Tolstoy's artistic and intellectual universe. Tolstoy's very first work, Childhood, a semi-fictional account of scenes inspired by his childhood, relates the 10-year-old protagonist's first confrontation with death when his mother unexpectedly succumbs to an illness. Tolstoy was about 2 years old when his mother died, and 9 when his father followed her. This initial painful realization of human mortality clearly exerted a profound impact, prompting him to recreate the image of his mother in Childhood and to return again and again to the theme of death in his subsequent works. Both War and Peace and Anna Karenina contain celebrated death scenes unparalleled in world literature, but shorter works have been just as powerful, in particular “Three Deaths,” The Death of Ivan Ilych, and The Kreutzer Sonata. Notable death scenes are also scattered in many, if not most, of his other pieces, including the Sevastopol sketches, The Cossacks, and Hadji Murat. The prominence of death in Tolstoy's oeuvre can hardly be overstated, and so it is no surprise that Philippe Ariès discusses Tolstoy's treatment of death at length in his seminal The Hour of Death, a survey of the history of dying in Western civilization.

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.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · 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