Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though any written trace of direct communication between Canadian theoretician Northrop Frye and British poet and novelist Robert Graves cannot be found, Frye often referred to the prolific British author in his reviews especially when weighing in Graves’ contribution to the mythopoetic school of criticism. In Frye’s opinion, Graves’s contribution is not in creating a “systematic mythology” but in depicting “mythical use of poetic language, where we invent our own myths and apply them to an indefinite number of human themes” (Gill 2010, lvi). Graves does not lead us to the objective systematic mythology since the myth in his poetry does not seem to be part of an objective system but a kaleidoscopic chaos of human fragments. It is the combination of mythical fragments that create the meaning of the poem after all while the central path to the author’s mind is found through broken images. In that sense the paper shows how the absence of direct correspondence between two authors gives way to the presence of relations between their works which is mainly reflected through the way they applied the myth of the Goddess in their works.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".