MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906807755 · doi:10.3968/8639

Harmonious Concordance of Men, Women and Nature: A Study of Lawrence’s Ecological Philosophy in His Lady Chatterley’s Lover

2016· article· en· W2906807755 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaoyao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicModernist Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitalityEcological civilizationHuman sexualityCivilizationEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPhilosophyEcologyHistoryGender studiesTheologyArchaeologyBiologyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D. H. Lawrence stands as a talented and unconventional writer in the twentieth century English Literature. Lady Chatterley’s Lover is his last novel which embodies his mature thought. The novel earns him both great fame and strong criticism. In spite of the controversies over Lawrence’s daring description of sexuality, the novel stands the test of time and becomes a classic of literature. The paper intends to reveal Lawrence’s ecological philosophy in Lady Chatterley’s Lover . By depicting harmonious nature and harmonious sex relationship, Lawrence presents his ecological philosophy. In the novel, harmonious nature is a silent protest against industrial civilization reflected by the contrast between Wragby and the wood. The harmonious sex relationship in nature is a great liberation of suppressed human nature. The disharmonious relationship between Clifford and Connie is like the deadwood lacking vitality, while the harmonious sex relationship between Mellors and Connie is like intertwining shoots which give mutual supports and vigor. Lady Chatterley’s Lover reflects Lawrence’s far-reaching ecological views and his concern about the whole ecosphere which embodies his strong social responsibility.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicModernist Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207