Time-play-space: playing up the visual in writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is a reflection of that aspect of Hall’s practice which brings a visual aesthetic to bear on a literary practice, produced after more than ten years of working with framed textual images as well as continuing to write for the page. It was commissioned by the editor for an issue of the journal with the theme of ‘Time: Tempo: Temporality’, particularly requesting Hall to address these topics in relation to his own visual poems. The article continues an exploration into a ‘poetics of reading’, already well underway with the article ‘Eluded Readings: trying to tell stories about reading contemporary poems’ (The Gig 15, Willowdale, Ontario, September 2003, pp. 35-54; a recording of a talk version is available at Archive of the Now: http://www.archiveofthenow.com/) and extended in ‘Reading Illegible Pages'. This enquiry particularly focuses on the different modalities of time between primarily textual and primarily visual domains, and the different understandings of both prosody and syntax that can be invoked to help understand a relationship between the two. Heidegger’s ‘Being and Time’ provides terms for some of the discussion. Hall assumes the value of close textual reading but insists that this needs to take into account the ‘situatedness’ of texts and readers, where ‘texts’ as a term includes visual images. Other contributors to the issue of the journal are poets and poet-critics, working on both sides of the Atlantic. They include Bruce Andrews, Allen Fisher, Jed Rasula and Maggie O’Sullivan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".