MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411051010 · doi:10.57027/eikasia.90.605

Conceptual Basis for William Wordsworth’s Rejection to Science

2019· article· en· W4411051010 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bárbara Jiménez Pazos

Bibliographic record

VenueEikasía Revista de Filosofía · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CambridgeJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of OxfordUniversity of ChicagoHarvard UniversityPrinceton University
KeywordsBasis (linear algebra)EpistemologyPhilosophyArt historyArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the literary criticism devoted to interpreting the work of W. Wordsworth tries, on the one hand, to overcome and moderate, or, on the other hand, to directly accept the manifest opposition against science and scientific practices that the poet maintains, mainly throughout his work The Prelude. I will examine the conceptual basis of such hostile attitude by analyzing the lexicon used in this work. The results obtained permit confirming Wordsworth’s hostility towards science, and more precisely, the prejudice that modern science would not allow a humanized perception of nature. But I argue that this attitude is due to a latent enchanted worldview, in a Weberian sense, more suitable for the sentimental description than for the perception and description of the natural landscape based on the explanatory knowledge of nature.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.050
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEikasía Revista de FilosofíaSame topicEvolution and Science EducationFrench-language works237,207