MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245601580 · doi:10.1353/mou.2011.0021

Flores

2011· article· en· W4245601580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. Murgatroyd

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEcocriticism and Environmental Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flores P. Murgatroyd I hate the flower of wood or common field. I cannot love the primrose nor regret The death of any shrinking violet, Nor even the cultured garden's banal yield. The silver lips of lilies virginal, The full deep bosom of the enchanted rose Please less than flowers glass-hid from frosts and snows For whom an alien heat makes festival. I love those flowers reared by man's careful art, Of heady scents and colours: strong of heart Or weak that die beneath the touch or knife, Some rich as sin and some as virtue pale, And some as subtly infamous and frail As she whose love still eats my soul and life. Theodore Wratislaw Hothouse Flowers (from Orchids, 1896) flaventes odi flores odique nigrantes quos vilis campus vile nemusque creant. cumque humiles violae, culti cum flosculus horti vulgaris marcens deficit, haud doleo. miror virgineis argentea lilia labris et gremio magicas multa tumente rosas. sed miror flores mage quos sub frigore servat aestibus externis exhilarans hyalus. flores namque adamo quos ars alit anxia, flores qui feriunt nasum percutiuntque oculos, et firmo qui corde valent, floresque caducos, quos tactusve manus ferrea falxve necat. hi sunt virtutis purae pallore decori, hi sceleri similes luxuriare solent, hi furtim infames, infirmi more puellae, nunc quoque quae nostram rodit amata animam. [End Page 221] P. Murgatroyd McMaster University Copyright © 2011 Mouseion

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of CanadaSame topicEcocriticism and Environmental LiteratureFrench-language works237,207