Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critics frequently agree that in the “Time Passes” section of To the Lighthouse, Woolf transcends linear time. In his article “History, Time and the Novel: reading Woolf’s To the Lighthouse”, however, Dominick LaCapra proposes a more complex theory of temporality, arguing that time has a two dimensional structure made up of a horizontal diachronic dimension, and a vertical synchronic dimension. The diachronic dimension comprises discrete “epochmaking events”, while the synchronic dimension seemingly immobilizes a particular moment in defiance of linear time. Woolf’s narrative focuses on the synchronic dimension of time, thus subverting the traditional narrative structure that focuses on plot driving events that occur on the diachronic temporal plane. I believe that the thematic prominence of time and the sacred in “Time Passes” is not arbitrary; in fact, I argue that it is Woolf’s innovative conception of temporal structure that allows her to engage so profoundly with themes of the sacred. The synchronic dimension of time provides an escape from the limitations that linear time imposes on our experience of the sacred; in other words, the synchronic dimension is what allows Woolf seemingly to immobilize an experience, to meditate on it in depth, and to convey more effectively the sacred nature of that experience. Throughout this section of To the Lighthouse Woolf suggests that by reframing how we exist in time, we can more readily feel the sacred that permeates everyday experience, and thus connect more intensely with existence
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".