MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210372756 · doi:10.5325/edgallpoerev.17.1.6

Beyond “De Rerum Naturâ, Esqr.”: Lucretius, Poe, and John Mason Good

2016· article· en· W4210372756 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Moreland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Edgar Allan Poe Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryPhilosophyLiteratureArtClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Scholars have previously noted Poe's passing references to the long didactic poem De Rerum Natura by the Roman poet Lucretius (ca. 99 BCE–55 BCE). This article asserts much greater significance to Poe's reception of this poem, particularly via a largely overlooked 1805 edition translated and annotated by the English writer John Mason Good (1764–1827). Careful comparative examination reveals the profound degree to which Poe's writings draw on Good's interpretations both in his version of The Nature of Things and his later work of natural theology, Book of Nature.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Edgar Allan Poe ReviewSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207