DIÁLOGO ENTRE H. P. LOVECRAFT E ARTHUR MACHEN: UMA ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DE THE DUNWICH HORROR E THE GREAT GOD PAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RECEBIDO EM 04 MAR 2017 APROVADO EM 30 MAR 2017 Em seu ensaio sobre o horror sobrenatural na literatura, H. P. Lovecraft dedica parte de um capítulo à obra de Arthut Machen, por quem nutria admiração e a quem atribuía a capacidade de elaborar um “êxtase do medo” inalcançável aos outros escritores do gênero. The Great God Pan , primeira e mais conhecida obra de Machen, foi publicada no ano em que Lovecraft nasceu e este a menciona mais de uma vez em seus escritos, admitindo publicamente que ela o havia inspirado na escrita de alguns dos seus textos. Este trabalho propõe a análise do conto “ The Dunwich Horror ”, de Lovecraft, e da novela The Great God Pan , de Machen, a fim de verificar os pontos de convergência entre as obras. // In his essay on supernatural horror in literature, H. P. Lovecraft devotes part of a chapter to the work of Arthut Machen, whom he admired and to whom he attributed the ability to elaborate a “rapture of fear” unachievable to other writers of the genre. The Great God Pan , Machen’s first and best-known work, was published in the year Lovecraft was born and he mentioned it more than once in his writings, publicly admitting that it had inspired him in writing some of his texts. This work proposes to analyze Lovecraft’s short story “The Dunwich horror” and Machen’s novella The Great God Pan, in order to verify the points of convergence between them. DOI: 10.12957/abusoes.2017.27771
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".