MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Basil Bunting’s Aesthetic Function: Art vs. Intellect

2012· article· en· W1846212793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farid Parvaneh, Raheleh S. Aaraaby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuntingIntellectHumanitiesMeaning (existential)PoetryLiminalityArtArt historyPhilosophyAestheticsLiteratureEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Basil Bunting is most commonly thought of as 1930s and 1940s poet grouped with some other poets such as Louis Zukofsky and Lorine Niedecker under the label “Objectivist ”. The present researchers seek to achieve two goals in this paper. The fi rst goal is to argue that Bunting pushes the aesthetic function to the very brink of sense but holds it there, oscillating on the cusp of referential meaning, thus creating a contested, liminal space where sound and sense content for the constructive axis of meaning-construction. The second goal is to construct an oppositional relationship between art and intellect and conclude that if the best poetry aspires to a state of pure music, that aspiration moves it even further away from the intellect1. Reference will also be made to opponents who put sight and visuality over and above everything else in man’s effort to acquire knowledge of this world in general. Key words : Bunting; Aesthetics; Form; Art; Intellect; Music Resume Basil Bunting est le plus souvent consideres comme des annees 1930 et 1940 de regroupes les poetes avec quelques autres poetes tels que Louis Zukofsky et Lorine Niedecker sous le label «objectiviste». Les chercheurs comtenporains cherchent a atteindre deux objectifs dans le present document. Le premier objectif est de faire valoir que le Bunting pousse la fonction esthetique au bord meme du sens, mais y maintient, oscillant sur le point de sens referentiel, creant ainsi un litigieuse, espace liminal ou le son et le contenu de sens pour l’axe constructif de sens-la construction. Le deuxieme objectif est de construire une relation d’opposition entre l’art et de l’intellect et de conclure que si la meilleure poesie aspire a un etat de la musique pure, que l’aspiration se deplace encore plus loin de l’intellect. Reference sera egalement a des adversaires qui ont mis la vue et la visualite audela de tout le reste de l’effort de l’homme d’acquerir des connaissances de ce monde en general. Mots cles: Forme Bunting; L’esthetique; L’art; L’intelligence; De la musique

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social science→Same topicPoetry Analysis and Criticism→French-language works237,207→