Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Writing to his mother from London in 1908, the young aspiring poet, Ezra Pound, reflected on his attitudes toward her: for some years past I have been so over busied contemplating abstractions of the marvelous working of my mental internal workings that I have not taken time to regard you as an individual with a certain right to think, hold ideas, etc. for yourself. & not necessisarily [ sic ] ideas in accord with my own. It seems to me that this action or rather lack of it on my part rather demands some sort of apology on my part which I here tender. (Moody, 72) This endearing admission is paradigmatic: it balances the poet's attention to his “marvelous” imaginative inner life with the belated recognition of the woman's – in this case Isabel Pound's – right to individuated selfhood. And once the recognition occurs it leads to remorse and an apology. These three elements can be discerned in Pound's exchanges with women and in his depictions of “woman”; although we don't necessarily find all three in every case. In the tradition of Dante Alighieri, often mediated by the Pre-Raphaelite poets such as Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Pound construed female friends as muses who nourished his internal workings. On occasion he would recognize their right to autonomy, treating them as equals, especially if they were poets he approved of, or editors, or publishers. And on occasion he would need to express remorse for failing to consistently acknowledge that his own agendas could cause them pain. However, it might also seem as if he sometimes continued to be “out of touch with his time” when it came to issues of gender and sexuality.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".