Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the beginning of her career, Simin Behbahani stresses her intention to reflect contemporary concerns in her poetry. She has continued to use the traditional form of ghazal and to affirm the ghazal's capacity to reflect the contemporary environment. Behbahani tells us how she changed the structure of the ghazal to suit her poetic needs. This paper focuses on the poetic conversation as a feature of Behbahani's poetic style which leads her poetry firmly into present time. Early female poets in Iran made use of poetic conversation to bring attention to a changing social system and, especially, issues of concern to women. Behbahani refines and perfects the technique of poetic conversation. Her poetic conversations range from a single-voiced complaint to complex commentary involving more than one perspective. In particular, a character identified only as “you” at times represents society or a companion, and may even bring the poet face-to-face with herself. This character widens the scope of the poetic drama. Behbahani's poetic conversations convey a femininity that is complex and a sensibility that is modern.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".