MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204186064

Love, Darkness and Wisdom in Irving Layton’s Love Poems.

2021· article· en· W3204186064 on OpenAlex
J.Kriruba Sharmila, R.Venkataraman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryLiteratureConsciousnessSoulPhilosophyPhilosophy of loveFeminismArtPsychoanalysisSociologyPsychologyTheologyGender studiesEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irving Layton, an English poet of Canada cannot be considered a poet celebrating love. On the other hand, his love poems pave way for the realization of wisdom. Thus, Layton’s poems on love are exhibitive of the opposites accounting for tension which according to John Crowe Ransom is the factor that sustains the poetic impact in poetry. This tension is didactic in Layton’s love poetry, for it gives an expose to his feminism too as he transposes himself into the consciousness of the feminine mind in its expectations of love from its man. Simultaneously, the poet is convinced that true love is just an accident. Layton presents the two sides of Love- one is love as religion and the other is the state of lovelornness. This renders a man devoid of soul. Layton advocates further that infidelity on the part of women and self-deception in men are the two unsurmountable impediments in the realization of true love.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.217 · 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