Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following article is a study of the influence of Karl Barth on the thinking of Northrop Frye and other connections between the two, such as neo-orthodox currents of thought in the 1930s at Emmanuel College, the importance of John Line and W.W. Bryden in Canadian theology at the time, the similar views of Frye and Barth on the analogia entis, natural theology, the Word, and metaphor. While direct influence of Barth on Frye is difficult to demonstrate conclusively, the references to Barth in Frye's work are sufficient to suggest that the great theologian did have an impact on the literary critic, whose international reputation had already established itself by the time of Barth's death in 1968. The present study is the thirty-second in a series of essays devoted to Frye and others, “others” referring to writers who were in differing ways important to Frye but about whom he never wrote anything extensive—an essay or a book or a chapter of a book. What Frye has to say about each of the “others” derives fr...
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".