Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tendency of the human beings to get used to the things, people and objects around them is an undeniable matter which is usually referred to as habitualization. Art (and in particular literature) is what helps us see the familiar in an unfamiliar and fresh way. As a distinctive feature of literature, defamiliarization refers to any process which tears away the reader’s familiar and habitual ways of looking at the world. Most of the methods of defamiliarizing technique include the creative use of everyday language and common concepts. The aim of this article is to show how Sohrab Sepehri, the Iranian modern poet, has made use of various methods of defamiliarization in his poems and also, to indicate the ways that these techniques serve the aim of changing the reader’s mode of perception back from the trite, automatic patterns of everyday life. Key words: Defamiliarization; Habitualization; Forgrounding; Sohrab Sepehri Resume La tendance des etres humains pour s’habituer a des choses, les gens et les objets autour d’eux est une question indiscutable qui est generalement denomme habitualisation. L’Art (et en particulier de la litterature) est ce que nous aide a voir le familier d’une maniere inconnue et fraiche. Comme un trait distinctif de la litterature, defamiliarisation se refere a tout processus qui arrache les moyens familiers et habituelle du lecteur de regarder le monde. La plupart des methodes de defamiliarisant technique comprennent l’utilisation creative de la langue quotidienne et des concepts communs. Le but de cet article est de montrer comment Sohrab Sepehri, le poete iranienne moderne, a fait usage de diverses methodes de defamiliarisation dans ses poemes et aussi, pour indiquer la facon dont ces techniques servent le but de changer le mode du lecteur de la perception de retour de les banales, les modeles automatiques de la vie quotidienne. Mots-cles: Defamiliarisation; Habitualization; Mise a la terre; Sohrab Sepehri
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".