Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his essay ‘Pan’s Pipes’ (1881), the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson proclaimed that the Greek mythic demigod ‘Pan is not dead’. Indeed, judging by its extensive presence in diverse literary and artistic manifestations in early twentieth century Britain, there was, as Maria Tatar puts it, somewhat of a ‘cultural mania for Pan in the Edwardian Age’. Pan captured the imaginations of the late Victorians and Edwardians, symbolizing both a note of lament as well as a desire to escape urban ‘progress’ in search of spiritual relief. According to Matthew Riley ‘To call on Pan was a nostalgic attempt to reconnect alienated modern humanity with nature’ (2007: 88). It is precisely this link between civilization and nature that I will be exploring, from an ecocritical perspective, by looking at how the myth of Pan has evolved within children’s literature. Throughout time the figure of Pan has suffered changes, however there is a constant in its image to serve as a link between culture and nature. This paper considers Pan’s affinity with nature by focusing on the figure of Pan in three canonical texts of children’s literature: J. M. Barrie’s classic Peter Pan, the figure of Pan in The Wind in the Willows (1908), and the figure of Mr Tumnus as Pan in C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (1950). Drawing on Cheryll Glotfelty’s definition of ecocriticism, I argue that each of the Pan myths ‘takes as its subject the interconnections between nature and culture’ (1996: xix). Pan takes on different forms, but coincides in being an antidote for the modern world, a reinterpreted symbol, a way of distancing oneself from modern society, and perhaps an answer to our environmental awareness and a way to empathize our bond with the natural world by promoting sensibility towards nature in times of crisis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".