MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796349460 · doi:10.1093/notesj/gjy020

Spiritual Alchemy in Andrew Marvell’s Eyes and Tears

2018· article· en· W2796349460 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Queries · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStanzaAlchemyDepictionPoetryLiteratureSAINTTheme (computing)ArtPhilosophyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

THE question still remains unsettled of whether Andrew Marvell’s Eyes and Tears is a religious poem in which he reworks the poetry of tears tradition associated with Robert Southwell, or a secular poem that is primarily responsive to non-religious depictions of female weeping. Since stanza VIII refers to Mary Magdalene those who see the lyric as consistently religious in orientation view it as essentially unified, while those who read the poem as largely secular discern a degree of discontinuity at work in it.1 The distance between these positions might be bridged somewhat by considering how stanza VI shows Marvell responding to Southwell’s depiction of spiritual alchemy in Saint Peters Complaynt, a theme that is developed in the poetry of tears tradition through Donne, Crashaw, Herbert, and others. For although the stanza seems strictly focused on natural phenomena, it nevertheless alludes to traditions of spiritual alchemy and thus leads relatively smoothly to the depiction of Mary Magdalene and her redeemer two stanzas later. Furthermore, stanza VI’s references to spiritual alchemy also illuminate some key imagery in the poem including the union of eyes and tears that closes the lyric.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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