Bibliographic record
Abstract
ELIZABETH BISHOP IS CONSIDERED by many critics to be one of the most important poets of her generation. 1 In August 1932, long before she began her professional career as a writer, Bishop, along with Evelyn Huntington, a classmate from Vassar, sailed from Boston to St. John’s to make a walking tour of Newfoundland, Britain’s oldest overseas colony. 2 The first of many voyages to interesting and unusual places, this trip to Newfoundland was Bishop’s first major journey. Though she had travelled regularly between Nova Scotia and the “Boston States” and had spent time on Cape Cod, the Newfoundland trip was the first time that Bishop, who would become famous for her sense of geography, ventured beyond her childhood world. As such, the Newfoundland trip initiated a pattern of travel to islands as far flung and as exotic as the Galapagos, Key West, and Aruba. Popular promotional literature at the time referred to Newfoundland as “America’s Newest Playground” and a “Land of Picturesque Beauty and Romantic Charm.” 3 Advertisements ran regularly in The Newfoundland Quarterly promoting the colony as an “unspoiled vacation-land” with a “stimulating climate” and “interesting people.” 4 During her trip to the island, Bishop collected photographs of the people she met and postcards of some of the places she visited. 5 She also kept handwritten notes which at some later date she edited and typed, adding handwritten jottings in the margins. Among her papers at Vassar, this brief travel narrative is titled simply “Notes in Newfoundland, 1932.” It begins 19 August (a day after she arrived on the island) and ends abruptly 3 September even though Bishop remained on the island an extra week (until 10 September). If Bishop kept notes during the final week of the trip, they have not survived. However, several photographs of people and scenes from Newfoundland and Labrador have been preserved, though it is
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".