MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964481626 · doi:10.25623/conn033-dyck-1

The Providential Rose: Herbert’s Full Cosmos and Fellowship of Creatures

2024· article· en· W6964481626 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglisches Seminar der Universität Tübingen · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mennonite University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanityPoetryRelation (database)CreaturesCriticismCosmos (plant)Theme (computing)Expression (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though Herbert’s writing is full of references to creatures and to human life in relation to non-human life, Herbert criticism has predominantly read his work as inner and devotional, often to the exclusion of the external and environmental. Richard Strier’s claim that Herbert’s deepest impulses require an empty cosmos, empty of all but him and God, is the most striking instance of this consensus. However, Wendell Berry finds in Herbert’s poem “Providence” the choice expression of a very different theological view, one that celebrates not private intimacy with God, but rather a public and creaturely intimacy, shared with all creation. This article traces a line of thought inspired by Berry’s observation, one that begins with Herbert’s instructions to parsons on gardening and cultivating herbs, through Herbert’s poem “The Rose” and its surface rejection of pleasure, to “Providence,” where we find a deeply formed and provocative picture of a cosmos in which humanity serves as priest, in a priesthood defined not by mastery but by attention and articulation. Returning to “The Rose,” we see that the poem grants the flower itself a mastery in which it teaches us, via its shared flesh and mind, as it participates with us in a fellowship of creatures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglisches Seminar der Universität TübingenSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207