Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kruger, Haidee. 2007. lush: poems for four voices. Pretoria: Protea Book House. 64 p. Price: R100,00. ISBN: 978-1-86919-205-1. Haidee Kruger has published poems in several print and online journals over a number of years. Her debut volume, lush: poems for four voices, comprises a selection from these earlier publications as well as a number of previously unpublished poems. The striking cover shows nude female figures seated around a cross in varying postures typically assumed in prayer. A selection of these images, in black and white as opposed to the deep red, brown, and skin-tone colours used for the cover, is repeated inside the volume on the pages demarcating the sections for the different voices. The cross as central image on the cover together with the positions assumed by the figures suggest a spiritual element, and this is realised in several poems in images and descriptions associated with a religious or Biblical context. This spiritual element is, however, always grounded in, or filtered through the natural world and human experiences or emotions. Compare for instance lines such as We lift our palms to the sky, our fingertips / a supplication for blessing, for the supple saliva / of sun and wind and water ... (Agnes, one) and so long immersed / in holy water our / electric blue limb to / limb radioactive / rosary of atoms tierce like / saints on fire yes--/ the arch / of your back my / oh holy grail only / to be resurrected to half-life (Dorothy, one). Another significant feature of the cover design is the variation in postures assumed by the figures. The variations suggest dramatic movement and change, perhaps of a cyclic nature, since the figures are positioned in a circle. The dramatic quality of the cover design is echoed in the subtitle by the qualification for four voices with its connotations of performance, while the themes of change, movement, transformation, or the inability to do so, are central to the volume as a whole. In the Collins English Dictionary appears twice as headword In the first entry, which concerns the adjectival form of the word, the following definition and etymology is given: 1. (of vegetation) abounding in lavish growth. 2. (esp. of fruits succulent and fleshy. 3. luxurious, elaborate, or opulent. [C15 probably from Old French lasche lax, lazy, from Latin laxus loose; perhaps related to Old English loec, Old Norse lakr weak, German lasch loose]. The information given for the second entry, reads: Slang. -n. 1. Chiefly U.S. and Canadian. a heavy drinker, esp. an alcoholic. 2. U.S. and Canadian. alcoholic drink. -vb. 3. U.S. and Canadian. to drink (alcohol) to excess. [C19: origin unknown]. What is of interest in these definitions is that although lush primarily describes qualities of natural phenomena such as vegetation or fruits, its etymological roots lie in words describing human nature or behaviour such as lax, lazy, loose and weak. …
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.728 | 0.612 |
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".