MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558996076 · doi:10.5539/ells.v6n4p95

Struggle for Seizing the Day and the Sick Love in To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell: An Anti-Platonic Reading

2016· article· en· W2558996076 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Navid Salehi Babamiri

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyPleasureHuman sexualityPoetrySoulPhilosophyVirtueLiteratureTheme (computing)NothingReading (process)PsychoanalysisAestheticsArtSociologyPsychologyEpistemologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platonic love refers to a kind of love that has no relationship with the negative mode of sexuality that is completely free of it especially in poetry. In Plato’s dialogue the Symposium it has been examined that Vulgar Eros is nothing but mere material attraction towards a beautiful body for physical pleasure, which Plato does not agree. Divine Eros, on the other side, begins the journey from physical attraction i.e., attraction towards beautiful form or body but transcends gradually to love for Supreme Beauty. Moreover; it implies active concern for the virtue and goodness of another soul, founded on the love of Goodness; it also implies sexuality, since sexuality finds its purpose in the intercourse of man and woman for the procreation of the children and the continuation of race (Allen, p. x). Based on this theory this research paper tries to show the theme of Anti- Platonic in the selected carpe diem poem, a poem which does not coincides to Plato’s theory but also objects to it too. Furthermore; it tries to shed light on the Anti-Platonic love that Marvell has it done by referring to the erotic love which is included in the frame of his works through symbols and other literary devices.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207