Elizabeth Bishop’s Poetics of Description by Zachariah Pickard, A Poet’s High Argument: Elizabeth Bishop and Christianity by Laurel Snow Corelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Review Article| June 01 2011 Elizabeth Bishop’s Poetics of Description by Zachariah Pickard, A Poet’s High Argument: Elizabeth Bishop and Christianity by Laurel Snow Corelle Elizabeth Bishop’s Poetics of Description, by Pickard, Zachariah, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009. 212 pages.A Poet’s High Argument: Elizabeth Bishop and Christianity, by Corelle, Laurel Snow, University of South Carolina Press, 2008. 139 pages. Nick Halpern Nick Halpern Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Twentieth-Century Literature (2011) 57 (2): 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1215/0041462X-2011-3003 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Nick Halpern; Elizabeth Bishop’s Poetics of Description by Zachariah Pickard, A Poet’s High Argument: Elizabeth Bishop and Christianity by Laurel Snow Corelle. Twentieth-Century Literature 1 June 2011; 57 (2): 277–284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/0041462X-2011-3003 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsTwentieth-Century Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © Hofstra University2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".