Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian writers have long been as divided on the matter of William Wordsworth’s influence as writers elsewhere. After looking at the criticism that regards Wordsworth as inappropriate in Canada, this essay considers three aspects of his enduring influence: responses to “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud,” the preferred text for those who wish to ridicule Wordsworth, but also a touchstone for such poets as Elizabeth Brewster and Don McKay; responses to “Tintern Abbey,” such as Charles G.D. Roberts’s “The Tantramar Revisited” and Al Purdy’s “The Country North of Belleville”; and Peter Dale Scott’s revision of The Prelude in Minding the Darkness. Wordsworthian poetry flourishes in diverse environments because it is less a matter of the Lake District than of “the mighty world / Of eye and ear,—both what they half create, / And what perceive” (“Tintern Abbey” 105-7). The essay concludes that Canadian criticism has placed too much emphasis on geography, especially for poets who are not exclusively concerned with national landscapes or themes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".