Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counted among Canada’s most influential poet-scholars of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Jan Zwicky and Anne Carson challenge the conventional distinctions that separate classical scholarship, art criticism, philosophy, and poetry. Although seldom paired by criticis, their scholarly and creative methods are comparable, serving as examples of lyric – a term that, through Zwicky’s work especially, signifies a contemporary movement in which poets and scholars resist what they see as prescriptive and unethical programs for academic pursuit. By allowing diverse genres of research and writing to infiltrate their writings, Carson and Zwicky have helped bring the political assumptions and cultural ramifications of certain academic conventions to light. Notably, in two controversial critiques of these writers and their work, David Solway and Zach Wells implicitly attribute the lyric approach to a markedly feminine and naive intellectual stance. Particularly in the contexts provided by Carson’s and Zwicky’s writings, such perspectives betray deep-seated gender prejudices that hinder Canada’s artistic and intellectual future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".