MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801899056 · doi:10.5430/elr.v7n2p1

Wilde’s Language Style in The Picture of Dorian Gray

2018· article· en· W2801899056 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictionGray (unit)BeautyRhetorical questionStyle (visual arts)SuccinctnessLiteraturePoetryWriting styleRhetorical deviceLinguisticsPhilosophyArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oscar Wilde, a famous Irish Aestheitc Writer, is well-known for the humourous language in his works. As the “lord of language”, he deliberately utilizes English as a tool to show the beauty of the language itself. His only novel The Picture of Dorian Gray commendably reveals Wilde’s talent in language organizing. This paper outlines Wilde’s employing witty rhetorical devices, the harmonious diction, brilliant paradoxes, jocular dialogues and witty epigrams to help readers perceive that succinctness, vividness, impressiveness and meaningfulness form the most important features of the writing style of the novel.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207