Playful Distance: On the Relationship between Fossils and Time in Eduard Mörike’s “Göttliche Reminiscenz”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nineteenth-century author Eduard Mörike is difficult to pin down. In some previous characterizations, Mörike has appeared as a provincial poet, one whose conversational tone, folksy compositions, and tendency towards fantasy lend him an unserious quality. While modern scholarship has shifted to debating the level of his political involvement and his status as a postclassical or proto-modern author, one characteristic stands out among the majority of descriptions: the playful quality of his works and the characters within them. Dreams, memory, encounters with art, idle pastimes—all common topoi in Mörike’s literary output—represent playful events in which varied spatiotemporal relationships emerge, especially in the face of potentially traumatic encounters with death, sickness, or the sublime. Mörike’s handling of the fossil in “Göttliche Reminiscenz” involves such an encounter. In the nineteenth century, fossils often set the stage for a traumatic encounter with vast expanses of non-human time. Mörike’s playful treatment of the subject offers a productive approach to the sublime that moves beyond a simple negation of its traumatic nature. In Mörike’s poem, the fossil exists as both a sublime thought figure and an intimate lyrical object, offering another way to conceptualize non-human experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".