MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577886754

Subjects of Experience: Post-cognitive Subjectivity in the Work of bp Nichol and Daphne Marlatt

2000· article· en· W1577886754 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Miriam Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssentialismSubjectivitySubject (documents)NarrativeCriticismEpistemologyConsciousnessSociologyAestheticsLiteraturePhilosophyLinguisticsArtComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both bp Nichol and Daphne Marlatt have recently been reproached for an imperialist narrative of nation and for feminist essentialism respectively. The critiques have been aimed at the who knows, when in fact both writers assume the position of the subject who undergoes, rendering much of the negative criticism irrelevant, because misdirected. Theorists such as Foucault, Derrida, and Kristeva have argued that consciousness is a derivative sociolinguistic product and that the critic should search out blind spots where ideology is received as common sense. Given the notion of the subject-in-process, or the subject undergoing, these theoretical proscriptions are problematic. The work of Nichol and Marlatt contains a double tension between cultural givens and productive becoming. The polemical and politicized disparagement ignores the aesthetic play and intensely subjective aspects of both poets' work.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.082
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207