Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagism is probably the most important single movement in English-language poetry of the twentieth century. Hardly any prominent poet in that generation went untouched by imagist theory and practice. It emphasized a romantic return to origins, a simplication of needless complexities, a zealous Puritanical stripping-away of the excrescences which had attached themselves to the art of poetry like barnacles to a clean hull. Amony the luxuries to be relinquished were traditional meter and rhyme, artificial poetic diction, superfluous verbiage, rhetoric, philosophizing and editorializing, and transitional filler. The poem was to be made as economical and functional as possible, and it chiefly present images unmediated without authorial commentary. However the Imagist poems turn out to be obscure and largely inaccessible to common public due to the focus on the immediacy of time, impersonality of viewpoint and irregularity of form. It is because, on the one hand, the imagist poets innovated boldly, to free the poetry from the shackles of old conventions, on the other hand, the imagist poets depicted the apprehensive inner world and the crisis of belief after the World War I, instead of the traditional abject of loyalty and perpetuity. However the sensational, chaotic and elusive form of language in the Imagist poems may obtain its justification in the Deconstructionist doctrine of human language which is characterized with a revolt against logocentrism and phonocentrism and which attempts to restore the prototype of language that was sensuous, intuitive and metaphorical in essence. The paper falls into two parts. It begins with a basic introduction of the Deconstructionism. Next, it endeavors to unfold the nature of the Imagist poetic language in the light of the Deconstructionist interpretation of language, which is conducted through a meticulous investigation of the Imagist poetry in terms of its instantaneity of emotion, fragmentation of structure and multiplied explications of the metaphorical language
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".