MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948531439 · doi:10.3138/cras.49.1.006

Progression through Regression: The Inferno of Daenerys Targaryen

2019· article· en· W2948531439 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sylva Sheridan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallelsLiteratureArtReading (process)PhilosophyArt historyVisionMirroringTheologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A chief warning from George R.R. Martin is that the “night is dark and full of terror.” This article is a critical reflection on a moment from Martin’s masterpiece, A Song of Ice and Fire. Through a close reading of the series, I found that one of the most poignant moments is Daenerys Targaryen’s visionary journey through the House of the Undying. It was in this moment that I found the influence of the indelible Dante Alighieri. My article parallels Daenerys’s journey alongside Dante’s journey through hell in his Inferno. I begin by drawing a comparison between the warning Daenerys is given by Pyat Pree and the warning found outside of the gates of hell in Inferno. I finish by considering the prophecy of the three treasons experienced by Daenerys, mirroring Dante’s vision of Lucifer. While these experiences may seem dark, there are moments of light interspersed. Throughout this article, I also reflect on how Game of Thrones interprets Daenerys’s visions as prophecy. Ultimately, I conclude that the true story of “ice and fire” is the story that leads one from bondage to freedom in the ultimate search for truth.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.024
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207