MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162461872 · doi:10.32628/ijsrst24116506

An Ecocentric Inspection of Frederick George Scott’s “The River”

2024· article· W7162461872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mr. A. Diwakar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEcocriticism and Environmental Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcocriticismPoetryGeorge (robot)Subject (documents)BiospherePopulationComparative literatureAnthropocentrism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eco-criticism is a critical approach to literature which heaves light upon the relationship between human beings and physical environment. It is also known as ‘Green Literature’. This movement was initially started in America in 1980s, later emerged in the Great Britain in early 1990s. It examines how literature treats the subject of nature. There is a couple of important literary personalities associated with this Ecocriticism namely Cheryll Glotfelty and William Rueckert. Ecocriticism advocates the application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature. It takes an earth centred approach to literary studies. It suggests that everything is connected with everything else. Ecocriticism is concerned with community, eco-system, population and biosphere etc. This research paper dissects Frederick George Scott’s poem “The River” with regard to an ecocritical outlook. F.G. Scott (Canadian poet) views the river itself as a living organism (Friend). The poem opens with the description of the topography of the little river, located in the Laurentians in northern Canada.

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)0.004
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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 venueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science and TechnologySame topicEcocriticism and Environmental LiteratureFrench-language works237,207