MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524840302 · doi:10.15294/lc.v10i2.5619

MYTHS IN EDGAR ALLAN POE’S “THE RAVEN”

2016· article· en· W2524840302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Imron Wakhid Harits, Ulfah Rizkyanita Sari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryArchetypeMythologyIronyTheme (computing)LiteratureAnalogyMeaning (existential)PhilosophyInnocenceArt historyArtPsychoanalysisPsychologyEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is aimed to describe myths which appear in Edgar Allan Poe‘s ―The Raven‖ and to figure out the way that is used by Edgar Allan Poe to show the myths in the poem and convey the meaning of the poem itself. Archetype theory from Canadian critic Northrop Frye is used in this study in order to analyze the myths in ―The Raven‖ poem. Furthermore, to clarify the myths in the poem itself, this study uses a qualitative research as a method to collect, select, code, and analyze the data. In the research finding ―The Raven‖ poem by Edgar Allan Poe contains three types of archetype imagery, they are apocalyptic, demonic, and analogical imagery (analogy of innocence and analogy of experience). This poem also contains the four types of cyclical symbolism of archetype, they are divine world, human world, animal world, and mineral world. It is also found that this poem has a structure of sparagmos due to the dark myth and the confusion world that cover the theme of poem. Finally, this poem is divided into six phases of winter which is related to the literary genre of irony and satire that explain more about the sorrowfulness of the author, Edgar Allan Poe because his lover, Lenore leaves him.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.026
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterary Theory and Cultural HermeneuticsFrench-language works237,207