MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054396306 · doi:10.3138/cras-s031-01-03

The Price of Publishing Modernism: Ezra Pound and the Exile in America

2001· article· en· W2054396306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Craig Monk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPound (networking)PoetryArtModernism (music)PublishingAmerican poetryArt historyLiteratureHistoryClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Ezra Pound began his association with the little magazine Poetry in 1912, he wrote to tell its editor, Harriet Monroe, that her plan for a publication “seems not only sound, but the only possible method. There is no other magazine in America which is not an insult to the serious artist and to the dignity of his art” (Paige 43–44). Published in Chicago, Poetry was a death knell for the genteel literary preten­sions of high-circulation magazines in the United States. But while Pound sug­gested to Monroe that it was not “any of the artist’s business whether or not he circulates,” he confessed that he too had been “nevertheless tempted, on the verge of starting a quarterly” (43–44). By this time, of course, the poet was well estab­lished in Europe, and over the subsequent decade he would rely heavily upon magazines like Blast, the Dial, the Egoist, the English Review, the Little Review, and the New Age to print his work. But it would be fifteen years before Pound edited his own magazine: four numbers of the Exile appeared between the spring of 1927 and the autumn of 1928 while the poet lived in Rapallo, Italy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207