Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations of the poetry of C.M. van den Heever This article traces the assessments of the value of the poetic work by the Afrikaans author C.M. van den Heever since the second quarter of the twentieth century. Appreciation of him as poet mainly revolves around his role as transitional figure in the important renewal of Afrikaans poetry in the 1930s, as can be seen from two rather divergent critiques by D.J. Opperman (completed in 1946 and 1952, respectively). An outstanding contribution by Van den Heever in this regard is the introduction of elements of Dutch poetry from around the turn of the nineteenth century to the Afrikaans literary world. A critic such as T.T. Cloete, in an article dating from 1957, convincingly argues that aspects of Van den Heever’s poetic style and technique, which other critics had sometimes judged harshly, are largely functional in co-communicating the specific (passively transcendental) attitude towards life and reality conveyed in Van den Heever’s work. Local and international shifts in the dominant literary approaches, however, have caused singularly confessional poetry – such as the bulk of Van den Heever’s poetic output – to be increasingly marginalised since the mid- 1930s. In this respect he shares the fate of Dutch poet A. Roland Holst, whose poetry was influential in shaping the characteristics of Van den Heever’s.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".