MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730966425 · doi:10.1177/001458581204600201

Leopardi's and Beckett's Dianoetic Laugh: The Intermediate Space of Desire in the <i>Operette Morali</i> and <i>Krapp's Last Tape</i>

2012· article· en· W2730966425 on OpenAlexaff
Roberta Cauchi-Santoro

Bibliographic record

VenueForum Italicum A Journal of Italian Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSamuel Beckett and Modernism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingLiteratureContext (archaeology)PhilosophySpace (punctuation)PoetryArtPsychoanalysisAestheticsHistoryPsychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The desire not to desire is crucial to Samuel Beckett's and Giacomo Leopardi's oeuvre. Beckett would delve at length into the ablation of desire in Proust, in which context Leopardi's poem “A Se Stesso” is quoted. Beckett catalogues Leopardi as one of the philosophers who proposed the only impossible solution — the removal of desire — to living. This apparently negative outlook in both authors has received critical attention. My contention, nonetheless, is that while both Leopardi and Beckett initially aspire to the nothingness that results out of the dissolution of desire, neither Leopardi nor Beckett are nihilists. It is through their humor that the two authors introduce a paradoxical intermediate space for desire, where the humorous moment simultaneously contains its repression and release. It is through the Leopardian and Beckettian dianoetic laugh, analyzed in the Operette Morali, Zibaldone di pensieri and Beckett's play Krapp's Last Tape, that this paradoxical desire is expressed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum Italicum A Journal of Italian StudiesSame topicSamuel Beckett and ModernismFrench-language works237,207