Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recensioni with examples, these Hsts are surprisingly exclusionary for someone who so loudly professes inclusiveness.Oftentimes, D'Alfonso's literary experimentation does not mome beyond the list.Gambling with Failure is an odd, but accomplished, mix of literary styles and genres.The author moves easily from literary portraits to snippets of conversation, numbered summaries to short journal-like entries to detailed guidelines for writ- ers and publishers, navigating the reader through a maze of critical reflections on all that is Italian and all that has to do with writing.One thing missing from this generic mélange of theoretical speculation is any traditional presentation of criti- cism.D'Alfonso rarely supports his arguments with secondary sources and, when he does, it is from works of literature that he draws his material and not from the readily available body of cultural criticism.His is a passionate, informed, but not overtly scholarly engagement with the cultural issues that have impacted him both personally and professionally.As a sustained attempt to define his public self.Gambling ivith Failure is an indispensable reference source for anyone wishing to examine D'Alfonso's wide- reaching artistic production.It will also appeal to readers interested in questions of ethnicity and, in particular, the complex cultural crisis of the Italic culture and identity.Although bleak at times, especially in its assessment of the current predicament of Canadian publishing, Gambling with Failure does offer an occa- sional optimistic thought to those who look hard enough for it.This may have something to do with the fact that, as D'Alfonso says, a "book is a blossoming of hope" (164).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".