MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221079123 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v12n1p344

A Look into Walt Whitman’s Transcendental Vision in “The Sleepers” in Leaves of Grass (1855)

2022· article· en· W4221079123 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Baker Banikhair, Haitham M. Talafha, Motasim O. Almwajeh, Khaled Alnajjar

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitySoulForegroundingPerfectionTranscendental numberPhilosophyAestheticsPoetryLiteratureEpistemologyArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at foregrounding the reciprocity and (meta)physical unity between the self and humanity in Walt Whitman’s “The Sleepers,” which shapes up Whitman’s ontological and spiritual experience of humanity. Importantly, Whitman’s views about what humanity should look like and the way it must be conceptualized are premised upon his microcosmic self that can transcend all (im)material boundaries to a cosmological level. This transcendental process brings nature and culture together and harmonizes them within one unified system where biological, racial, ethnic, and ideological differences cease to exist. The new world prophesized and heavily stressed by Whitman in “The Sleepers” becomes thus free of antagonism, cruelty, and prejudice. Notably, what makes Whitman’s prophetic vision possible in the poem is the way this vision is filtered through the symmetrical relationship between the body and soul and the way this relationship echoes the perfection of the universe and the complementary aspect of its natural cycle.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.019
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207