MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399293138 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n5p271

Reframing “Literature as Equipment for Living:” Kenneth Burke's Theory and the Social Function of Literature

2024· article· en· W4399293138 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadia Mohammad, Majid Mgamis

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingFunction (biology)EpistemologySocial functionComputer sciencePhilosophyPsychologyHumanitiesSocial psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article delves into Kenneth Burke's seminal essay, "Literature as Equipment for Living," presenting a fresh perspective on literary criticism that underscores the pragmatic, societal, and political roles of literature. Burke posits that literature functions as an active agent, offering viable courses of action in response to worldly matters. Departing from traditional analyses of form and structure, Burke advocates for classifying works based on shared strategies for addressing situations. He contends that literature acts as a navigational tool, aiding in comprehension and interpretation of the world while urging readers to engage with texts for insights and inspiration in confronting life's challenges. Burke's viewpoint underscores the subjective nature of language, reflecting our individual experiences and perspectives on the world. His critical methodology advocates for a comprehensive and nuanced approach to literary critique, expanding the horizons of scholarly considerations.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.128
Scholarly communication0.0260.030
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207