MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603122835

Ambiguity and the Poets

2008· article· en· W2603122835 on OpenAlex
Eleanor Cook

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConnotations · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualAmbiguityReputationOrder (exchange)Visitor patternSociologyLawHistoryComputer scienceLaw and economicsLinguisticsPhilosophyPolitical scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A stranger meeting for first time might well be taken aback by her mixed reputation. She is disliked and avoided in some realms, whereas in others she is welcome. A philosopher like J. L. Austin will patrol streets of language in order to identify in his book, How To Do Things with Words. Ambiguity is bane of translators, who must decide whether it is intentional or merely casual, and ii casual, whether author is careless or lazy or ignorant. We do not want in legislation. Nor do we want it in our wills or in our financial affairs. (Lawyers, of course, like linguists, [consider] as productive because it triggers processes of disambiguation [Bauer par. 6]) Nor do we want in our traffic signs. A recent visitor from Australia, driving on express highway around Toronto, noticed signs for collector lanes. assumed - logically enough - that these were toll highways, collecting money, and so avoided them, overshot city, and was late for dinner. In fact, collector lanes simply siphon off - that is, collect - traffic that is preparing to exit.On other hand, is a useful and even welcome guest in some places. It is excellent device for concealing views. The oracles are said to have used regularly, though these turn out to be literary oracles more than historical ones, as far as we can tell. Macbeth's witches offer a well-known later example. The gods are prone to or amphibology, according to Chaucer's Criseyde: He hath not wel goddes understonde/ For goddes speken in amphibologies,/ And, for a sooth, they teUen twenty lyes [lies] (Troilus and Criseyde IV. 1405-07). In academic Ufe today, also has its uses. Suppose a selection committee for a senior position at your university receives a letter of recommendation on behalf of Professor X. How does it read sentence: You wUl be fortunate indeed if you can get Professor X to work for you. Intentional or not?For a literary scholar and critic, general dimensions of can appear singularly difficult to map. It seems to be not so much unknown land mass as a mythological creature, a Proteus, who changes shape whenever you wish to capture him - Proteus ambiguus, as Ovid calls him (Metamorphoses II.9). This many-sidedness is sometimes blamed on WUUam Empson's weU-known book, Types of Ambiguity, which pubUshed in 1930, in his twenties. Most of his examples are drawn from poetry. It is not a taxonomy, as one might expect from title. As his editor, John Haffenden, puts it: Seven Types of Ambiguity [...] offers less a methodology than Empson's own methodised briUiance (4).1 Pertinent criticism at time objected among other things that Empson [...] been too prodigal in his associative [...] interpretations, and that he too often worried parts without reference to whole (4). But term spread, thanks largely to so-caUed New Critics, though by 1947, one of them, Cleanth Brooks, wrote that held no brief for term ambiguity (or for paradox or irony): they are inadequate. Perhaps they are misleading. It is to be hoped in that case that we can eventuaUy improve upon them (195). By 1957, WUUam K. Wimsatt and Brooks acknowledged that the term 'ambiguity' was perhaps not altogether happy, for this term reflects point of view of expository prose, where one meaning, and only one meaning, is wanted (637). That is, norm for has always included what they call multiple impUcation (638) - a useful enough phrase, if clumsy. In 1958, Roman Jakobson accepted term ambiguity, defining it as an intrinsic, inaUenable character of any self-focussed message, briefly, a corollary feature of poetry (85). went on to quote Empson.2 (Jakobson' s essay, by way, was first pubUshed in English.) Meanwhile, Empson revised his book somewhat for later editions, then about 1973 mischievously wrote to a friend:Reviewers were teUing me, as soon as Ambiguity came out, that not aU was ambiguous, and I could see that method worked best where authors had had some impulse or need for process; but, as it had become my line, I went on slogging at it for two more books. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.168 · 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