Just Like a Barrette that Claws, that Clasps, that Clips, that Cunts: metonymy, metaphor, and simile in Angela Carr’s The Rose Concordance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Playing on the many meanings and linguistic roles of the word like, Nicole Markotic responds to Angela Carr’s poetry book, The Rose Concordance , which translates lines in the keyword index to the thirteenth-century poem Roman de la rose . Referencing canonical poems about love by William Blake, Robert Burns, Christopher Marlowe, and Gertrude Stein, Markotic moves through a discussion of contemporary poets that include Carla Harryman, Phil Hall, Susan Holbrook, and Nikki Reimer. In The Rose Concordance , Carr takes on the patriarchy of the traditional poetic address and questions the role of the female figure within such structures, the way that the body does or does not run from lyric complicity. The Rose Concordance , like Roman de la rose , proffers rose as metonymic for lover . Carr uncovers the layers of previous manuscripts that propose coupled love in a particularly pronoun-gendering way. As part of that uncovering , the concordance becomes a museum, a fine archive, a compendium, and a catalogue. In her work, Carr addresses an archival love that severs itself from lyric tradition at the very moment that it excavates itself from and burrows into that tradition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".