MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614709572 · doi:10.1080/10509585.2017.1314668

Listening Not Listening: William Wordsworth and the Radical Materiality of Sound

2017· article· en· W2614709572 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Romantic Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCaribbean and African Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonnetActive listeningPoetryPoliticsLiteratureArtReading (process)FeelingArgument (complex analysis)Subject (documents)AestheticsCraftVisual artsPhilosophySociologyLawLinguisticsPolitical scienceEpistemologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay reconsiders the political stakes of William Wordsworth’s 1803 sonnet, “To Toussaint L’Ouverture,” by reading its representation of the legacy of the imprisoned Haitian military leader, Toussaint Louverture, through a Spinozist conception of the affections. Focusing on sound as a material force, the essay takes inspiration from the Canadian poet Jordan Scott’s Guantánamo project in order to frame its argument in terms of the question, “how is it possible to listen in places of trauma?” Like many of Wordsworth’s poems, the sonnet abstracts and subsumes its subject into the dynamics of the natural world, which here becomes a revolutionary power that continues beyond Louverture’s death. Rather than treating Wordsworth’s effusions as empty bombast, this essay demonstrates that his account of Louverture’s transition from man to force of feeling admits the melancholy possibility that political reinvention’s best hope might be that even those who fail to listen cannot help but be moved.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.218 · 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