MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313241339 · doi:10.20431/2347-3134.1010005

To Better Understand Vincent : A Study of The Emotional Tone of Vincent Van Gogh's Letters to His Brother Theo: 1872-1890

2022· article· en· W4313241339 on OpenAlex
Cynthia Whissell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrotherTone (literature)ArtPsychologySociologyLiteratureAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why would one study the correspondence of someone they wanted to understand better? According to Barnes (2018, p. 1), they would do this because "letters carry material traces of the emotions that motivated the writer" and also because letters "stand in for face-to-face communication with familiars". Barnes suggests that inkblots, torn pages, or hurried scrawls might provide clues as to the nature of the emotion in letters. The research described in this paper consults a different source: it looks for emotion in the words that letter-writers employ. This research analyzes the letters of the post-impressionist painter Vincent van Gogh to his brother Theo and scores them for the emotional tone of their words and for word usage patterns. The paper describes three chapters in the painter's life between 1872 and his death in 1890 (outlined in Table Vincent Van Gogh fascinates. He commands attention. He did this in intense interactions with his family (Naifeh & White Smith, 2012, chapter 1), and in his collaborations and communications with fellow artists such as Paul Gauguin (chapter 31). Vincent's admirers affirm that his letters embody both great literature (Grant, 2016, p. xi; Roskill, 2008, p. 11) and an innovative theory of art (Roskill, 2008, p. 39). Vincent commanded attention by his art, making choices for form and color that were far from usual. More than a century after his death, Vincent continues to command attention by way of the Van Gogh Museum (vangoghmuseum.nl/en), and the many critical and analytical works written about him and his art and letters (e.g., When one encounters Vincent, it is difficult to look or listen briefly and then move on. The artist's compelling oeuvre and his absorbing life, which was lived dramatically and never lacked for conflict, entangle his audience. This article studies Vincent as a letter-writer, employing techniques that limit subjectivity in the interpretation of the letters' contents. It calls on a semiobjective scoring procedure (the Dictionary of Affect in Language; The research will examine the letters, not in terms of their details or meanings but rather in terms of their emotional flavours. Pleasantness and Activation are background characteristics of the letters: they describe whole letters in terms of a single score and report on their general emotional tone. The measure of Imagery quantifies the artist's language in terms of its

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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