Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robert Louis Jackson, ed. Λ New Word on The Brothers Karamazov. Northwestern University Press Studies in Russian Literature and Theory. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2004. xii, 261 pp. $79.95, cloth.Robert Louis Jackson is to be commended for editing this excellent collection of seventeen essays. The essays will push us all-students and scholars alike-to reconsider the art and ideas of Dostoevsky's novel, and thus it deserves a place in the libraries of all schools that teach The Brothers Karamazov. I will single out some of the essays to provide a sense of the range of critical lenses that Jackson has brought to this volume.In her introductory essay Robin Feuer Miller primes our reading with a striking recommendation, essays reflect the jagged immediacy of a group of adventuresome, informed encounters with Dostoevsky's final novel (p. 3), and then a careful reading, in which she draws our attention to some of the novel's most poignant and lasting symbols. These symbols help us to identify layers of narrative, and yet, even when we finish reading the book, they are rich with potential: the leaf, a door, a stone, the seed, and the onion.Robert Bird examines Dostoevsky's characterization in the novel, making a case for the open-endedness of Alyosha. Liza Knapp compares the treatment of grieving mothers in Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris to the grief-stricken mothers in The Brothers Karamazov. Caryl Emerson considers the question, Is the elder Zosima a sufficiently vigorous, convincing rebuttal of the 'extreme blasphemy' of the Grand Inquisitor? (p. 155), drawing on Bakhtin's discussion of great time and small time to consider the embedded narrative of Zosima's mysterious visitor. Horst-Jurgen Gerigk centres his attention on the manner in which Dostoevsky evokes rather than describes the topographic features of selected crucial scenes, among them Fyodor Pavlovich's house and the door leading from the house to the garden. Kate Holland examines the foundations of the legal narratives in Dmitrii's trial, arguing that both the prosecution and the defence present linear logical deductive arguments to prove or disprove the value of Dmitrii's amulet as evidence. Thus, the narratives leave out gaps or anomalies in order to prove that the accused must have acted in this or that way. Marina Kostalevsky considers Dostoevsky's portrayals of consciousness, suggesting that in themone may perceive a revolutionary break from the romantic opposition that affixed reason to the brain and the emotions to the body; a break which on the one hand, links his approach with the Platonic and Christian tradition of the threefold unity of human nature and, on the other hand, leads in the direction of the late-twentieth century revision of the mind-body question (p. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".