Kapitola o dramatickém básnictví v prvním a druhém vydání Jungmannovy Slovesnosti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis deals with the chapter about dramatic poetry in the first and second edition of Jungmann's "Slovesnost". Its aim is to outline the author's dramatic approach, cover the changes that occurred in the second edition in comparison to the first one, and show Jungmann's work with aesthetic notions, using examples. First of all, we described a formal set-out of the chapter and its place within the whole "Slovesnost", and then we concentrated on individual genres and their modifications in either edition. Finally, we focused on aesthetic motives which occur in the chapter. Our thesis proves that Jungmann's thinking dramatically changed and modernised within a quarter of a century. He stopped using primarily Czech expressions, which was the case in 1820, and yielded to ever more often used international words in a way, which led to his moderation in terms of Czech Revivalism. The case of the key term "estetický" ("aesthetic") was similar - the author mentioned it only in 1845 instead of the original "krasovědný" (a truly Czech word with the same meaning), and using it enabled him to rebuild the aesthetic system by creating the so-called "nonaesthetic feelings". Modernising the theory was also mirrored in the fact that the author no longer emphasised ethical moments. In the second edition, he concentrated...
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".