MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239249026 · doi:10.1017/ccol0521792711.003

<i>Anna Karenina </i>

2002· book-chapter· es· W4239249026 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Lönnqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussian Literature and Bakhtin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeTheme (computing)Order (exchange)Love storyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyArt historyArtLiteraturePsychologyComputer scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her diary entry for March 3, 1877, when the novel Anna Karenina was almost finished, Tolstoy’s wife Sofya recorded her husband’s words: “In order for a work to be good, one must love its main basic idea, as in Anna Karenina I love the idea of family [ mysl' semeinuiu ].” How does this idea agree with what is generally thought to be the main theme of the novel - passionate love that transgresses all boundaries? Does Tolstoy not love Anna, this beautiful woman, so charmingly depicted when we (and Vronsky) first meet her? woman, so charmingly depicted when we (and Vronsky) first meet her? Her shining gray eyes, that looked dark from under the thick lashes, rested with friendly attention on his face, as though she were recognizing him … In that brief look Vronsky had time to notice the suppressed eagerness which played over her face, and flitted between the brilliant eyes and the faint smile that curved her red lips. It was as though her nature were brimming over with something that against her will showed itself now in the flash of her eyes, and now in her smile. (I, 18; 73; PSS 18: 66)

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicRussian Literature and Bakhtin StudiesFrench-language works237,207