MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225287626 · doi:10.1177/09760911221092808

Archiving ‘Future Years’: Wordsworthian Dis-ease of Memory from Pantheism to Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4225287626 on OpenAlexaff
Rajarshi Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia Watch · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeForgettingReading (process)PsychoanalysisLiteratureHistoryAnamnesisAestheticsPsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyArtCognitive psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the experiment with memory in Wordsworth’s ‘Tintern Abbey’ (1798) has been a much-discussed topic since its publication, what constitutes a discussion seldom approached is the debilitating untenability of the archival project in the text that keeps undercutting itself even as the ensuing tug-of-war—between remembering and forgetting, and also between remembering and recollecting—invariably plunges into a narrative breakdown alongside a fervently collapsing selfhood. A reading of the text allows this article to foreground such restlessness as an obsessive preoccupation with the anxiety of anamnesis, on the one hand, and the compulsion to resist its failure, on the other. While several critics have discussed the narrative of ‘return’ in Wordsworth and the text in question, my interest in this article is to demonstrate that memory is not only emblematic of a return but also of preservation of the future that leaves the transition from the past to the future utterly frustrating in the present. This frustration—a repeated and interminable frustration—in the text is what blinds Wordsworth’s speaker to such an extent that he fails to recognise or remember the unavoidably pathological nature of anamnesis. Diseased as he is, his obsession with archiving entails a pathological projection of an interiority upon an exterior world that is already always a failure in itself. This is because the need to retrieve—and even contrive—memory is, thus, presented as a compulsive impetus that is organised, disorganised and reorganised within a meticulously constructed archive that, as I argue, keeps tumbling over itself. This article, therefore, traces the dynamics of such a discursive attempt at archiving memory—and its subject—while it remains perpetually under erasure. Further, I emphasise that Wordsworth’s pantheism and our pandemic are so similarly structured that studying the failure of one undeniably lends us an insight into the other.

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)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.035
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 venueMedia WatchSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207