MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122558109 · doi:10.3968/11988

Autobiographical Peculiarities in James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

2020· article· en· W3122558109 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdalhadi Nimer Abdalqader Abu Jweid

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicModernist Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortraitStyle (visual arts)NarrativePerspective (graphical)LiteraturePerceptionAutobiographical memoryPsychologyAestheticsArtArt historyVisual artsCognitive psychologyRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper traces the autobiographical elements in James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916) is rich with literary techniques. Joyce experiments with the structure of the kunstleroman (the novel of or about the artist), conveying the narrative through the perspective of the growing artist, literally from infancy to adulthood. His syntactical and grammatical style maps both the development of the mind and abilities of the young artist, beginning with the fragmented and simple style and associative logic of a child, and moving to the complex logic and subtle perception of a sensitive and artistic young man. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the autobiographical structure of the novel. Thus, the very structure of Joyce’s novel is noteworthy: He portrays Stephen’s growth to manhood through key episodes of his youth. In part, in order to cover so much of his youth, Joyce tells Stephen’s story in episodes, focusing on the most formative events or moments in Stephen’s life. Thus, these textual insights will be revealed as the autobiographical aspects of the novel.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicModernist Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207