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 OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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