Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poetry as Knowing — Like the pure sciences, poetry is first and foremost a cognitive instrument, one of the most rigorous modes of knowing that exist. Everything about it is shaped by the search for insight, or even truth. Poets are no more in the business of "making pretty" than molecular biologists or computer nerds; they put us into un-mediated contact with the grid of the world, force us to dig deeper than ever before into the amorphous business of being. This they do by "making it new". Poetry is a "counter idiomatic" practise, one that grates against the words of the tribe, its received ideas and its verities. And "form" — whether "free" or forged out of constraints — plays an all-important part in making it new for us. Form is decorative only to the illiterate. For the competent receiver, it is acutely, intensely functional. By giving it form, making it new, forcing us out of the lexicalized varieties that have gone stale on us, poetry makes us feel our way to new truths, or to a gut knowledge of old ones. Hence the maïeutic function of poetry. The very fact that poetry is so intolerant of the already-said is what explains the irreplicability or what Berman referred to as la lettre and makes the poem refractory to translation. Yet, most practitioners conceive of translation as a way of replicating what's already there. It's hard to imagine a more anti-poetic stance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".