Bibliographic record
Abstract
There were four letters, dated between August 2, 1974, and January 5, 1975, the fi rst written by hand, scrunched edge to edge on four legal-pad pages, the others typed on the portable typewriter I' d hauled to Alaska, with its worn ribbon.Memory is, of course, fi ckle, adjustable, alterable and altered.We know from brain research that it's not a fi xed thing, like something Nancy Lord 10 Lord | One Writer, Becoming stored in a lockbox, or-in today's terms-data in a computer.Memory is a process, and each time we call up a memory the neural connections link up a little diff erently and amend the memory itself, even as the pathways strengthen.I'm not surprised, then, to be surprised at some of what I' d written forty years earlier.I' d forgotten much, and, as time passed, misremembered-or rewrote in my mind-what had seemed to matter to me.But there, captured on the faded pages, lived the fundamental self-the young woman trying to fi gure out who she was.Who would care about what lay in the slanted penmanship, the imperfect typing, the struck-out words (changing "maddening" to "pathetic") of that young woman, the newcomer to Alaska?I was no E. B. White, turning to his 1923 journal in 1961 to compose "Th e Years of Wonder" about the "wondering and wandering" young man who shipped to Alaska on a steamer, the young essayist descending delightedly through his journey from passenger to saloonsman and then messboy.And I certainly was no Eudora Welty, presenting her literary biography in One Writer's Beginnings at the end of her impressive career.Just maybe, though, there was something to discover, in the particulars of my fl edgling life, about how any of us-perhaps especially those who become writers by intent or happenstance-navigate our early distances.Might not we all, looking back at the dream worlds that drew us toward adventure or home, add to the conversation?
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.010 |
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".