Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explores the influences of Milton’s Samson Agonistes on Coleridge’s Remorse in terms of poetic dialogue. Poetic dialogue is an open-ended poetic collaboration between authors consisting of various poetic forms of literature (Magnuson, 1988). The study of such literary collaboration is usually concerned with contemporary authors. This study, however, proposes that poetic dialogue is possible between Coleridge and precedent poets. Magnuson (1988)’s theory of poetic dialogue found that there are two collaborative processes of the negation and application of the character. In the process of negation, Coleridge denies the image of being surrounded by a swarm of dangers of hornets in Milton’s Samson Agonistes. Coleridge changes the figurative expression of hornets to the figurative expression of coldness to express his romantic imagination. In the process of the application of the character, Coleridge uses Dalila’s argument which evades responsibility in Milton’s Samson Agonistes. The main character in Coleridge’s Remorse, Ordonio, changes the focus of the argument from individual fault to something that can happen to everyone. This, in turn, increases Ordonio’s affliction later. Coleridge transfuses Dalila’s character into Ordonio so that the degree of tragedy increases. With these poetic dialogues in mind, the paper concludes that Milton is an interlocutor of poetic dialogue as if Milton is in front of Coleridge. Coleridge can conduct dialogue with Milton, allude to and revise Milton’s poems, and generate open-ended dialogic poems. This dialogue, in turn, would change and enlarge Milton’s poetic space.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".