MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033880992

엘리자베스 비숍 시에 나타난 물의 이미지와 상상력

2018· article· ko· W3033880992 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
심진호

Bibliographic record

Venue영어영문학연구 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryNova scotiaLiteratureArtHistoryArt historyEthnology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout her entire life, Elizabeth Bishop constantly reveals her preferences for writing poems full of images and motifs of water. Bishop’s poems often suggest elusive meanings like the dual properties of water which shows the difference between the surface and depth at the same time. Particularly, it is worthwhile to note Bishop’s third book of poems entitled Questions of Travel. This book includes a number of poems about recognizable water images from Nova Scotia to Brazil where the poet spent precious periods in her life. Images of water in a lot of her poems set in North America are described as dry and barren landscapes due to her sense of homelessness derived from the loss of her parents in her early childhood. This is best exemplified in her expression of “the water doesn’t wet anything.” However, it is important that Bishop’s maternal desire is latent under the surface of her poems on the loss of maternity. Her maternal imagination linked to the water images is most manifested in her poems on the “Brazil” section of Questions of Travel. Moreover, a series of poems with images of water devoid of fluidity and maternity set in Nova Scotia allude to Bishop’s latent maternity. Bishop’s water images lurking in maternal desire act as a source to dissolve the dichotomous thinking originated from Western Chauvinism.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue영어영문학연구Same topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207