MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6988580006

[학술논문] Simulations of America in Mark Twain's Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven

2001· other· en· W6988580006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venue기초학문자료센터(KRM) (Korea Research Foundation) · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeavenReading (process)WifeInterpretation (philosophy)PessimismSkepticismPleasure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mark Twain's pessimism in his late years has been irrefutable orthodox for his biographical environment. He had gone through severe business flasco for "the collapse of his publishing house and the failure of the Paige typesetting machine" and several deaths in his family, including his first daughter Susy's death in August 1896 and his beloved wife Olivia's in June 1904, both of whom were muse to him (Skandera Trombly 7). He later works were consequently interpreted under the umbrella of pessimism. Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven(1909) was not an exception. This travelogue has been interpreted as the expression of his satiric skepticism about "human vanity and conventional religious beliefs about heaven and the afterlife." The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard's simulation theory in his Simulacra and Simulations(1981), however, overturns such a dystopian interpretation, Baudrillard's concept of simulation illuminates that Twain undermines the conventional concept of America by simulating it. Its intertextual reading in juxtaposition with Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood's Surfacing(1972) reveals that Twain's simulation of America embodies his deconstructive-reconstructive blueprint for his homeland. Baudrillard's utopian vision of America presented in his travelogue, America(1986), reinforces the subversive pleasure of disclosing Twain's hopeful frontier spirit.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.032

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.332 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue기초학문자료센터(KRM) (Korea Research Foundation)French-language works237,207