MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236939509

The Sacrificial Poetics of A.J.M. Smith

2011· article· en· W2236939509 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Claudine Gélinas-Faucher

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Canadian Literature · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoeticsSacrificePoetryLiteratureContext (archaeology)MythologyArtPhilosophyHistoryTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1932 and 1934, A.J.M. Smith had one of his last significant bursts of creativity while transitioning from relative unemployment toward the security of a career as a scholar and anthologist of Canadian literature. Smith’s earlier verse, including “Like an Old Proud King in a Parable” (1928), “Good Friday” (1929), and “To a Young Poet” (1934), establishes a model of self-sacrifice for the poet by stressing the precepts of modern poetry at the expense of recognition and popularity. By the mid-s, however, Smith’s sacrificial confidence shows signs of weakness, and poems such as “A Soldier’s Ghost” (1934) and “Chorus” (1936) point to a darker, less assertive articulation of personal sacrifice. By portraying instances of sacrifice in Greek myth, Christian doctrine, and in the more contemporary socio-political context of war, Smith puts forth his sacrificial poetics in an attempt to negotiate the relationship between the poet and his readership and, more broadly, the poet’s relationship with society.

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)0.003
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 score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Canadian LiteratureSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207