Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines the movement set in motion by reading to formulate the act of reading as an experience that transforms both the identity of the reader and the significations gathered in a text. I first focus on the Canadian poet-essayist Lisa Robertson’s Nilling: prose (2012) to discuss “where” we go when we read and what happens to readerly identity during the act of reading. I then turn to Derrida’s work to study the implications that reading’s motions have on the rapport between text and reader. I argue that both Robertson and Derrida highlight the importance of reading in initiating a dialogue/pact between text and reader. They formulate an ethics of reading through an analysis of this pact, which foregrounds the dialogic nature of thinking and being. The pact between reader and text, self and alterity, is mutually binding and keeps them both suspended, postponing any closure of meaning. I furthermore demonstrate that Robertson and Derrida define reading by practicing it. As Robertson defines it, by staging a reading of Hannah Arendt and Pauline Réage, and as Derrida defines it by reading Paul Celan, they become enfolded in a multi-referential reading community. They place emphasis on the vitality of multiple, often illegible, agencies at work in textual encounters, and assert that readerly identity and textual meaning find the source of their creative potential in this illegibility. The essay develops a poetic-philosophical approach to theories of reading, and contributes to the existing scholarship on theories on authorship/readership and textual interpretation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".