MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996840401 · doi:10.5430/elr.v8n4p27

Symbolism in V. Woolf's “Orlando” (Cognitive Tools of Figurative Thought)

2019· article· en· W2996840401 on OpenAlex
Natalya Davidko

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchetypeSymbol (formal)Literal and figurative languageIdeologyThe SymbolicPeriod (music)Embodied cognitionLiteratureCognitionEpistemologySociologyLinguisticsPhilosophyAestheticsArtPsychologyPoliticsPsychoanalysisLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research is devoted to the study of the oak tree symbolism in V. Woolf's “Orlando” (1928) with the dual purpose of defining its functional role in the literary text and educing cognitive and cultural foundations underlying conception and development of the symbol. The principles and tools employed for the analysis allow of tracing the formation of the symbolic domain of the Tree concept to the Proto-Indo-European period. Later accretions of symbolic meanings conditioned by a mythic and religious vision of the world produced a rich paradigm of symbolic attributes grounded in the primordial archetype and adapted to a new ideology. The in-depth research into textural peculiarities and semantic content of the discourses with the oak tree as a central leitmotif reveals “prominence” choices of attributes and intricate combination thereof.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.249 · 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