Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the peculiarities of cyclization in Oleksa Stefanovych’s (1899—1970) poetry. Based on the theoretical definitions of a lyrical cycle (cycle of poems, sequence of poems) formulated in the works of Rolf Fieguth, Mikhail Darvin, Larisa Liapina, Ronald Vroon, Leonid Yanitskii, et al., the research outlines the main compositional, stylistic, thematic, and functional traits of Stefanovych’s lyrical cycles and demonstrates the evolution of certain key images in them. The material for analysis is taken from the collection of Stefanovych’s poetry published posthumously in Toronto (“Zibrani Tvory” / “Collected Works”, 1975). The special attention is paid to his apocalyptic cycle “Kintsesvitnie” (“The World’s End”) that demonstrates the whole complex of architectonic and stylistic features inherent to a cycle of poems, particularly the presence of the ‘cyclic subject’ defined by R. Fieguth as “the subject of all creative, especially compositional, acts which are the basis of this poetic cycle” [13, 19]. The composition of “Kintsesvitnie” is based on the combination of the chronological and the plot development principles allowing to encompass Stefanovych’s creative work as a whole. The poems from various periods are selected and arranged so that they form a clear cyclic structure with steady imagery and a distinct thematic echo between its beginning and its end. Their dating reflects the consistency of the poet’s catastrophic worldview declared by the cycle’s title. It also demonstrates the evolution of its key metaphors (an evil bird, a thunderstorm, a trumpet) that arise in Stefanovych’s early works as visual or acoustic images and gradually evolve into the apocalyptic symbols of “Kintsesvitnie”.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".