MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777623181 · doi:10.26522/br.v13i1.1092

Ecocritical Echoes in William Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey

2017· article· en· W2777623181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elmira Bazregarzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Brock Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEcocriticism and Environmental Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcocriticismPoetryReading (process)PhilosophyEgalitarianismLiteratureArtArt historyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the great Nature poems of Wordsworth, Tintern Abbey (1798) sheds light on the way Nature affects Wordsworth’s memory and enables him to reach mental growth through his philosophical interconnection with it. Through an ecocritical study of Tintern Abbey, the present paper aims to take the clash between the Yale School critics, the New Historicists, and the ecocritics into consideration to show how the contradictory views of the afore-mentioned critics led to a Green reading of the poem in the light of Ecocriticism. Key Words: Biospheric Egalitarianism, Wordsworthian Displacement, Regional Specificity, Metamorphosis, and Ecocriticism.

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)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Brock ReviewSame topicEcocriticism and Environmental LiteratureFrench-language works237,207