MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904186499 · doi:10.1093/crj/cly012

Poppies, scarlet flowers, ‘this beauty’: H.D.’s<i>Choruses from the Iphigeneia in Aulis</i>and the First World War

2018· article· en· W2904186499 on OpenAlexaff
Miranda Hickman, Lynn Kozak

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical Receptions Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural History and Identity Formation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyWitnessNarrativeMaturity (psychological)QueerLiteratureAmbivalenceSpanish Civil WarHistoryArtAestheticsSociologyGender studiesLawPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modernist poet H.D.’s experimental translation of Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis (1916), published during WWI, shows H.D. pursuing this project to explore how wartime can provide opportunity for women to achieve extraordinary cultural authority in positions not generally afforded women, such as those of direct witness, storyteller and news-bringer, and heroic sacrificial victim. This translation project both registered and fostered the emergence of H.D.’s feminist queer thought about how ‘New Women’ of her time might come of age differently from women of generations past — through new narratives, new varieties of authority, and new forms of maturity. Finally, the essay complicates received ideas about H.D.’s ‘pacifist’ and critical stance on war, reading her translation choices as structured by an ambivalent fascination with both wartime ‘beauty’ and forms of advancement made distinctively possible for women by the circumstances of war.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical Receptions JournalSame topicCultural History and Identity FormationFrench-language works237,207