MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4233912746 · doi:10.1353/jnc.2013.0002

Introduction

2013· article· en· W4233912746 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Max Cavitch

Notice bibliographique

RevueJ19 · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePoetry Analysis and Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoetryPoeticsSophisticationPoliticsLiteratureScholarshipInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryHypertextLiterary criticismHistory of literatureAestheticsVariety (cybernetics)CriticismNew CriticismArtPhilosophyLiterary theoryLawPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Max Cavitch (bio) Introduction The study of nineteenth-century American poetry and poetics has been enjoying an efflorescence that shows no signs of contracting, as the essays in this special forum attest. Each of the invited contributors has in his or her own way drawn on and extended what the past two decades, especially, have yielded up: (1) vast numbers of long-forgotten poems in need of “recovery” and interpretation; (2) fresh readings of many major poets and poems that had been languishing in inattention; (3) voluminous and well-edited anthologies and editions,1 along with a proliferation of sophisticated electronic databases and hypertext archives,2 which continue to make more and more poetry readily available for reading, scholarship, and classroom use; and (4) criticism of unprecedented variety and sophistication, which has done much to reinterpret and retheorize both established and emergent canons.3 Among the most consequential developments has been the belated recognition of not simply the existence but also the centrality to North American literary and cultural history of poetry by women. And the comparable recovery and demarginalization of poetry by authors of color has also had far more than an additive effect on canon (re)formation. Fundamental reimaginings of American literary history have taken place across a critical terrain now comprehensively reshaped by the salutary seismic pressures of the dialectic between identity politics and the politics of the impersonal. We continue to attend as scrupulously and humbly as possible to the historical situatedness of persons and the plight of subjectivation, while also challenging the [End Page 179] persistent but often misleading equation of poetic language with the manifestation of a personal voice. We have repaired the hasty dismissal of the aesthetic tout court with enhanced sociohistorical approaches to literary form and counterhegemonic reengagements with philosophical aesthetics. And our sharpened awareness of how the constant migrations, free and forced, of elites as well as of the disprized, along with women’s transnational voluntary associationism, has helped us deconstruct the often still tenacious national orientation of literary studies generally. With such vital developments over the years has come the readiness of scholars of nineteenth-century American poetry and poetics to follow—and in many cases to help direct—the movement of critical thinking by various so-called turns: the linguistic, the historical, the ethical, the transatlantic, the transnational, the affective, the material. Long before all of this, of course, there was the turning of a plow at the end of a row that the Greeks called trepein and the Romans vertere, which gave to English the terms trope, for figural turns or shifts in meaning, and verse, for the literal turning of the end of a line. Line breaks have never been the absolute sine qua non of poetry as such, yet the line has always been fundamental to the making of poetry as a particular kind of discourse, turning to make another turn, in what may be recurrent or discordant patterns, as when a minister “lines out” a hymn, or when a blues artist “worries” the line. The line of nineteenth-century American poetry is manifold, in all the ways conjured by the Latin linea: originally, a linen thread or string essential to tasks of gathering, measuring, and ordering: used to make fishing lines and nets, to plumb depths, and to fix verticals in masonry and carpentry; also meaning the stroke or mark of a pencil; and, crucially, a line of descent, as well as a boundary, limit, or ultimate goal. (Let’s agree never to give up gorging on etymologies.) As the lines, or lineages, of American poetry have turned and turned again with the shifting movements of critical thinking, what counts as American poetry has been an abundant source of literary-historical discord: written elsewhere; published elsewhere; frequently imagined to have come from a place existing only retrospectively, if at all; projected onto colonies, regions, territories, and nations, and fitting awkwardly, at best, the shifting measure that came at a certain point to be called the United States. In the present context, nineteenth-century American poetry and poetics are understood chiefly in relation to the North American geographical and linguistic sweep from Canada to [End...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,582
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0530,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,192
Écart entre enseignants0,179 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJ19Même sujetPoetry Analysis and CriticismTravaux en français237 207