MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898613610 · doi:10.32396/usurj.v4i1.301

“A Lost Pulse of Feeling”: Reconnecting with the “Hidden Self” in Matthew Arnold’s “Buried Life”

2017· article· en· W2898613610 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jana Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingHumanityReading (process)LamentOrder (exchange)AestheticsIsolation (microbiology)SociologyState (computer science)PoetryLiteratureEpistemologyPhilosophyComputer scienceLinguisticsArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matthew Arnold’s “Buried Life” explores the desire for genuine human connection amidst the self-isolating impositions of his speaker’s society. It presents an image of a world so lacking in meaningful interaction that those who exist within it are bound to a restrictive state of half-life, disconnected as they are from the rest of humanity. While much of the critical discourse has viewed Arnold’s poem as little more than a woeful lament for an unattainable state of existence, this paper considers a reading in which the speaker has succeeded in moving beyond the bounds of his collective isolation and is optimistic of there being a manner in which others can do the same. In such a reading, the methodology for replicating the speaker’s success is gradually revealed throughout the text, and the plan which he proposes is a simple one. In order to unearth the life which has been “buried,” he suggests, in order to reconnect — however briefly — with that “lost pulse of feeling” from which so many have grown distant, all that is required is for the members of his society to communicate freely with one another about even their deepest, most “nameless feelings.”

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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.035
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207