MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159722080 · doi:10.3968/12025

The Reception of The Arabian Nights in World Literature

2021· article· en· W3159722080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdalhadi Nimer Abu Jweid

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteraturePoetryNarrativeDramaHistoryPoliticsLiterary criticismSubject (documents)Style (visual arts)ArtPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the last three centuries, The Arabian Nights has contributed to various literary styles in the field of the oriental tale. Being so, The Arabian Nights has been a subject of utilization, reversal, reformulation, parody, pastiche, and adaptation for many writers. In this paper, my focus will be on the direct and indirect influence of The Arabian Nights on diverse literary genres. Therefore, the study deals with the influence of The Arabian Nights on in world literature. It is literature review on a theoretical introduction of the importance of The Arabian Nights in world literature. It emphasizes its transformation into literary genres, namely, poetry, drama, novel, and the short story. It will also show some comparative critical theories on The Arabian Nights , especially concerning the oriental tale, narration techniques, and the socio-political continuum. Therefore, it introduces the outstanding literary aspects of The Arabian Nights which inspired different literary genres of different cultural backgrounds. Apparently, a number of poets, playwrights, and novelists pay indebtedness to the forms as well as the thematic styles of The Arabian Nights .

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207