MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206221417 · doi:10.1080/0013838x.2021.2021674

<i>The World My Wilderness</i>and the Possibility of Forgiveness: War, Guilt, Atonement

2022· article· en· W4206221417 on OpenAlexaff
Allan Hepburn

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgivenessWildernessAtonementNarrativeRepresentation (politics)LiteratureSociologyAestheticsHistoryPhilosophyArtTheologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Rose Macaulay’s The World My Wilderness (1950), forgiveness affords possibilities to redeem personal and national guilt. Can humankind be forgiven for atrocities perpetrated during the Second Word War, and if so, by whom? Whereas forgiveness can undo the predicament of irreversibility by bringing about reconciliation and an improved future for individuals and communities, those outcomes never come to pass in this novel. Refusal to acknowledge guilt thwarts the likelihood that the future of Europe will differ from the past. Critics usually dismiss Macaulay’s religious thinking as irrelevant, but she freely adapts Christian ideas about atonement and forgiveness to this narrative about guilt. This essay draws upon a wide range of Macaulay’s fictional and critical works, such as Some Religious Elements in English Literature, The Towers of Trebizond, essays about Jonathan Swift and “Religious Writing,” and her biography of John Milton, to argue that wartime guilt and forgiveness regulate midcentury novelistic representation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.036
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish StudiesSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207