MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998014744 · doi:10.1080/25723618.2019.1697176

Towards Redefining Chinese Baroque Poetry

2019· article· en· W2998014744 on OpenAlex
Pengfei Wang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Literature East & West · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaroquePoetryAllegoryLiteraturePoeticsModernityArtMeaning (existential)The SymbolicBeautyRepresentation (politics)PhilosophyAestheticsPoliticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modernity of the Baroque is determined by its non-mimetic, non-symbolic, or, simply, its allegorical form. As allegory, the Baroque undermines and obscures the specific literal meaning of a representation open to (symbolic) understanding. Allegory contains a representational element that allows for understanding but only in order to show that the understanding it reaches is necessarily in error. Chinese poets of the mid-late Tang experienced a similar case of ostracism from their contemporaries. Although their poetry was admired, poets like Meng Jiao, Li He and Li Shangyin went unappreciated and almost forgotten until later poets discovered them and their poetry was recognized not only as great poetry, but also as “Baroque” poetry. Through a comparative translation analysis of three of the mid-late Tang poets and poems, this essay tries to redefine Chinese Baroque poetry and to illustrate a baroque poetics not only in the way they depart from traditional, or symbolic poetic modes but also in how they subvert them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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