MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009535865 · doi:10.5539/res.v12n1p87

The Chreia in the Forrest

2020· article· en· W3009535865 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Rois

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryRhetoricHeavenThe RenaissanceInterpretation (philosophy)Composition (language)LiteratureGrammarArtPhilosophyLinguisticsArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpretation of poetry becomes manageable when we find in the poets' background elements of early training which are revealed in their work. In the schools of the British Renaissance Aphothonius’ Progymnasmata was the preferred manual of classical rhetoric used to teach students how to write. The composition exercises in this manual of rhetoric were applied to the art of letter writing, since this was the most common means for communication at the time. Among the various writing exercises from the Progymnasmata used in the grammar schools of the English Renaissance, the chreia predominates. We can see that the main thematic headings and subdivisions used in the epistolary lyric fit this particular format. John Donne introduced this innovation to English poetry. Ben Jonson perfected the technique, as we see in his book of poems, The Forrest. Several of his best known poems fit the chreia pattern. We close our study with a suggestion that To Heaven, one of the best known poems of the English Renaissance, can be interpreted as a letter addressed directly to God.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207