The Battle of the Dubyas: Romantic vs. early modern version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A creative assignment for an Introductory Literary Theory and Criticism course, The Battle of the Dubyas: Romantic vs. early Modernist version depicts a fictional dialogue between the Romantic poet William Wordsworth and modern writer Virginia Woolf. The informal nature of a dialogue allows for a heated debate between the two theorists, where their distinct style of speaking—Woolf with her many dashes and Wordsworth with his complete sentences—convey the periodical and ideological differences. The first subject of the debate is the topic of androgyny, where Woolf explains the demerits of confining writing to a singlesexed medium—whether it be an overtly direct writing, or covertly complicated one—and chides Wordsworth for being too masculine in his thought. The second topic arrives at the issue of material conditions needed for literary genius—where Wordsworth’s notion of the Poet transcending all physical obstacles is debunked and silenced by Woolf’s fictional account of Shakespeare’s sister, Judith. Between the opposing stances of each theorist’s views on gender divide in writing and nature vs. nurture in breeding genius, Woolf’s ideals of androgyny and material necessity for genius triumph that of Wordsworth’s arcane and masculine views on natural genius of the Poet.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".