MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605952010 · doi:10.1093/res/hgx041

ELEANOR COOK. Elizabeth Bishop At Work.

2017· article· en· W2605952010 on OpenAlex
Sophie Baldock

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

VenueThe Review of English Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryBiographyPaintingArtArt historyLiteratureHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elizabeth Bishop’s poems have sometimes been compared to Vermeer’s paintings. The Dutch artist’s detailed, lucid yet enigmatic pictures are a compelling parallel to Bishop’s exquisite poems. Yet, for all the recognition of Bishop’s attention to (often visual) detail, her meticulous descriptions and her virtuoso technique, precise analysis of exactly how she achieves her poetic effects is relatively rare. Eleanor Cook, Professor Emerita at the University of Toronto, suggests that recent critics have been too concerned with matching Bishop’s poems to the details of her biography. Bishop suffered several devastating losses during her lifetime, including the early deaths of her father and mother, and later of her partner, Lota de Macedo Soares, from an overdose. These and other events undoubtedly had a significant impact, and Cook does not deny that complex relationships between art and biography can be found in Bishop’s poems, but her book focuses deliberately on how the poems work, rather than what they do or do not reveal about the details of Bishop’s life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.246 · 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