MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199647985

Three Windows to Plato's Academy: A Study of Kathleen Raine's "A House of Music", "Soliloquies upon Love" and "A Blessing"

2012· article· en· W3199647985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shadi Mohyeddin Ghomshei

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlessingPoetryPhilosophyLiteratureThe artsBeautyMeaning (existential)Key (lock)Reading (process)AestheticsEpistemologyArtTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the basic and essential views that Kathleen Raine, a great though not fully acknowledged contemporary British poet, shares with Plato through commentaries offered on three of her poems. The influence of Plato on Raine is so great that in reading her poems one cannot help but realize the Platonic doctrines governing them. Raine believed Plato to be the philosopher of arts and the Platonic philosophy to be the necessary basis of all imaginative arts. The researcher hopes that this paper would provide fresh insight into our understanding of the meaning of spirituality in the post-modernist world and in this process perhaps cast some light on such long forgotten values: Truth, Beauty and the Good. Raine maintains that truth never becomes out of date; it is always itself and is always there for those who wish to avail themselves of it; it can never lose its validity. Raine believes that certain Platonic themes which do not alter in value should remain and form the themes of modern poetry. Key words: Plato; Kathleen Raine; Music; Love; Blessing; Philosophy

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.029
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207