MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lawrence, T. E. (1888–1935)

2018· book-chapter· en· W4252572734 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Hemmings

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiterature Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEPICPopularityAsceticismHistoryArt historyOrientalismArtClassicsLiteratureLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thomas Edward Lawrence was an Oxford-trained medieval scholar, guerrilla leader, rebel, ascetic and spy. Lawrence was an inveterate self-fashioner in addition to being compellingly mythologized by a coterie of literary friends and romanticized in Lowell Thomas’s (1892–1981) 1919 multi-media show ‘With Allenby in Palestine’. His mythical status was renewed with the popularity of David Lean’s (1908–1991) cinematic epic Lawrence of Arabia (1962). Lawrence’s involvement with Arab revolt against the Turks, his postwar support for the Arab movement and disillusionment with Britain’s exploitation of that movement, and his subsequent flight from rank and title provide the material for his agonistic autobiographical writing. After the war, he renounced his fame and position, assuming the names John Hume Ross and T. E. Shaw and becoming a dedicated serviceman, a ‘mechanical monk’ in the newly created Royal Air Force (Meyers 124). He was also a classic ‘Orientalist’ and ‘imperial agent’, according to Edward Said (240); a ‘mysterious farrago’ and a ‘fraud’, according to Richard Aldington (35); and remains ‘a prince of our disorder’, according to Irving Howe (qtd. in Mack xvi).

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.023

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiterature Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207