Орфей vs Нарцис (трансформація міфів у "Видінні Орфея" Галини Пагутяк та "Магові" Дж. Фаулза
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Література \n1. Пагутяк Г.В. Видіння Орфея / Пагутяк Г. Потрапити в сад. Сучасне фантастичне оповідання. К. : Молодь, 1990. С. 71‒78. \n2. Солодовник К.Б. Миф как модель текущей реальности в английском постмодернистском романе (на материале раннего творчества Дж. Фаулза) // Известия Российского государственного педагогического университета им. А.И. Герцена. 2007. № 43-1. С.319-323. http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=11906521 \n3. Фаулз Дж. Маг: роман / Джон Фаулз: пер. з англ. О. Короля. – Харків: Книжковий клуб «Клуб сімейного дозвілля», 2016. – 528 с. \n4. Hardie P. R. Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion / Philip R. Hardie. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002. – 365 p., р. 143–173 \n5. Vinge L. The Narcissus Theme in Western European Literature \nup to the Early Nineteenth Century / Louise Vinge; [translated by Robert \nDewsnap, Lisbeth Gronlund and Nigel Reeves, Ingrid Soderberg– \nReeves]. – Lund, Sweden : Gleerups, 1967. – 448 p., р. 19 \n6. Zimmerman C. Pastoral Narcissus: a study of the first idyll of \nTheocritus / Clayton Zimmerman. – Boston : Rowman & Littlefield, 1994 \n– 111p., с. 1–25
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".