MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739226843 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.29.2.4027

William Peter Blatty's <i>The Exorcist</i> and Rhetoric–Dialectic Interplay

2017· article· en· W2739226843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gavin F. Hurley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialecticBeautyPhilosophyRhetorical questionTranscendental numberRhetoricArgumentation theoryDemonEpistemologyLiteratureTheologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article closely analyzes a partnership between the literary, rhetorical, and dialectical dimensions of William Blatty's The Exorcist (1971), a popular horror novel about a twelve-year-old girl possessed by an ancient demon, Pazuzu. The Exorcist navigates the theological understanding of transcendental unity—Beauty, Goodness, and Truth (found in the theories of Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and contemporary Thomists). The “evil” dimensions of The Exorcist (ugliness, sin, and lies, respectively) counterpoint the beauty–goodness–truth relationship; consequently, Blatty's horrific/repulsive elements highlight the role of Catholic truth, heighten the dialectical function of Catholic theology, and enhance the power of argumentation within a literary work. By closely unpacking several dialogues within Blatty's The Exorcist, this article establishes the novel as an accessible piece of “Catholic horror” that persuasively guides popular audiences through modes of theological argumentation toward sites of Catholic understanding.

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)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.031
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207