MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151484440 · doi:10.1177/1750698014558658

Poetry as monument: Jenny Holzer and the memorial poems of 9/11

2014· article· en· W2151484440 on OpenAlexaff
Moberley Luger

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryPopularityScrollingMeaning (existential)LiteratureMandateHistoryArt historyArtLawPhilosophyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay argues for poetry’s memorial function. After the 9/11 attacks, poetry circulated widely in the United States. Explanations of the genre’s sudden popularity primarily focus on its comfort role—divorcing its role in private settings from its role in public ones. I suggest that poems be recognized as “technologies of memory” (Sturken), politically charged objects through which memories are produced and given meaning. I discuss an installation by conceptual artist Jenny Holzer featured in the rebuilt 7 World Trade Center that consists of 36 hours of poetry scrolling across a large LED screen; poems were selected on the developer’s idea that there only be “positive stuff, good stuff” at this historic site. The installation’s positive mandate reflects a shift, as previous critics have noted, in commemoration practices more generally toward an emphasis on hope and healing. I discuss how poetry affects and is affected by this shift. I read three poems written on the first anniversary of 9/11 (yet excluded from Holzer’s installation) that function as exemplary technologies of memory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemory StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207