Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major poet of the Tang period, Li Shangyin is highly regarded yet criticized because his work is densely allusive. Dazzling and rich in meaning, it is also difficult and obscure because of its pervasive allusiveness. Chapter I reviews critical opinion of Li's use of allusion. Many traditional critics see allusion as an ornamental rhetorical device and consider Li's profuse allusiveness an idiosyncrasy to be tolerated in an esteemed poet. Chapter II studies allusion broadly and precisely as a literary concept: generally, allusion is a "connector" of texts, a link between a poet's work and his literary heritage; specifically, it is a linguistic device serving metaphorical functions. Allusion viewed as extended metaphor generates multiple meanings. An approach to reading allusion is here developed, to interpret allusive texts on literal, allegorical, and symbolic levels. The chapter concludes that it is a misconception to say that the heavy use of allusion necessarily leads to inferior poetry. Chapter III relates Li's allusions to major motifs in his work, finding that his historical and mythological allusions fall into clusters and patterns. The profusion of mythological allusions yields symbolic meanings, both in individual poems and in the larger context of his collected works. Examining Li's characteristic use of allusion, the chapter shows how it functions as a major stylistic signature and is the principal reason for the plurisignation and ambiguity in his poetry. Chapter IV interprets several typical poems by Li Shangyin in the context of the theoretical and historical framework of the foregoing chapters. It highlights some of the major functions of allusion in these poems. A positive response to the plurisignation of Li's allusive mode allows for an inclusive critical approach to diverse interpretations and discards those readings failing the standards of consistency, coherence, and completeness . Chapter V concludes that Li's presumed vice is his virtue: his allusive texture makes his work difficult but gives it a rewarding richness. His unique use of allusion is organic. Far from being a mere ornamental device, allusion is the very poetry itself. He creates his own poetic mode, the Poetry of Allusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".