A WORLD OF LOST THINGS: THE CANADIAN BAROQUE TRADITION IN ITS MODERNIST CONTEXT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis I consider what T.S. Eliot has called a “peculiar affinity” between the twentieth century and the seventeenth. I do so first by establishing what may be called a baroque sensibility and then analyzing the ways in which this sensibility is present in modernist texts by Luigi Pirandello, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, T.S. Eliot, and Carlo Emilio Gadda. Using theoretical writing by Walter Benjamin and Georg Lukács, I develop the idea of a baroque sensibility, which is characterized by the separation of immanence and transcendence, by way of a consideration of allegory and melancholia. After a comparative discussion of the ways in which the above writers adopt and adapt a baroque sensibility in their work, I turn to a similar tradition in Canadian literature and argue that Canadian modernists, like A.J.M. Smith and Leonard Cohen, can be seen as participating in this tradition of reconsidering the baroque.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".