MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127839191 · doi:10.15388/litera.2020.4.2

Image of Vilnius in Joseph Arthur Gobineau‘s Novel The Pleiades

2020· article· en· W3127839191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vytautas Bikulčius

Bibliographic record

VenueLiteratūra · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCentral European Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PleiadesHonorQuarter (Canadian coin)Art historyArtCartographyHumanitiesHistoryGeographyArchaeologyPhysicsComputer scienceAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using insights from comparative imagology the image of Vilnius in Joseph Arthur Gobineau’s novel The Pleiades (1874) has been analysed in the paper. Presumably, the name of Vilnius was first mentioned by Olympe Chodzko, his Parisian acquaintance, in her short story, its scene is laid in Vilnius. The way Vilnius is imaged depends on context. Where Vilnius is compared to the privileged Saint-Honoré quarter in Paris a tinge of phobia arises unavoidably because Vilnius in no way is comparable to Paris. Likewise is imaged Vilnius by Sophie Tonska, Marquis Candeuil’s sweetheart. Marquis Candeuil selected Vilnius for his residence from seven possible cities accidentally, by drawing lots. That attitude of the protagonist can be related to idiocracy. Where the author writes about Vilnius in the St. Petersburg-Warsaw railroad construction context his philia can be felt. Vilnius is imaged not only in this context, but also through Marquis Candeuil’s thoughts pertaining to the essential problems raised in the novel. Finally, all that reveals that the image of Vilnius in the novel, at first glance so unintentional, actually pertains to the whole system 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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueLiteratūraSame topicCentral European Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207