MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416234388 · doi:10.5539/ells.v15n4p19

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Literature-Blessing or a Curse: An Analysis of Robopocalypse and Klara and the Sun

2025· article· W4416234388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallelsField (mathematics)Music and artificial intelligenceArtificial lifeCurseApplications of artificial intelligenceBlessing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern age is the age of science and technology. Technology has taken over every field of life. One among such technology is Artificial Intelligence (AI). From last few decades Artificial Intelligence is dominating human life. The application of AI in business, life and work has revolutionary power. During the past years, the complementary connection of human intelligence with the computational power of machines has been transforming lives. One could observe innovations in every field of life across the globe. In this context, literature has always played an important role. This paper is an attempt to analyse Artificial Intelligence (AI) through the lens of literature by analysing the novels such as Robopocalypse (2011), and Klara and the Sun (2021). The researcher analysed these novels and how they portray Artificial Intelligence. It has shown that how AI can be both a blessing and a curse on human civilization. It draws parallels between reel and real and has found the important role played by artificial intelligence in modern man’s life.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207