Intertextuality Between T. S Eliot and Al Sayyab’s Poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to shed light on ‘intertextuality’ as a cross cultural technique between modern Arabic and English poetry with reference to T. S Eliot and Al Sayyab. It aims to uncover the intertextual aspects of ‘allusion’, ‘symbols and myths’, ‘irony’, ‘the objective equivalent’, ‘conceptual metaphor’ and ‘impersonality’ between Eliot and Al Sayyab and the impact of Eliot’s thoughts, themes, expressions and style on Al Sayyab’s. However, the study reveals that the strategy of intertextuality takes a one-way direction, i.e., from Eliot to Al Sayyab, and Eliot’s fingerprints are quite manifest in Al Sayyab’s poetry. Moreover, although some of Eliot’s key expressions, ideas, symbols, myths and themes are borrowed by Al Sayyab, he could professionally use intertextuality and maintain his illustrious style.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".