Labour and the End(s) of Art in Archibald Lampman's “The Land of Pallas”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is intended as a sequel to “Robots and ‘The End of Work' in Archibald Lampman's ‘The City of the End of Things,'” published in the University of Toronto Quarterly 85.2 (Spring 2016). It builds directly on ideas first presented there. In the earlier article, I argued that Lampman's “The City of the End of Things” has been regularly misread as a poem about exploited labour when, in fact, it is rather more concerned with the elimination of work through automation and the rationalization of the industrial process. Here, I turn to the question of the poet's work, and the status of the poem as a work, which inevitably arises whenever a poet makes the work of others the subject of his writing. While an anxiety about the status of creative labour is merely latent in “The City of the End of Things,” it manifests fully in “The Land of Pallas,” which Lampman wrote as a companion piece to the better-known poem. In the following article, I argue that “The Land of Pallas” can be read as an attempt to salvage an idea of the poet as external to the realm of work that the treatment of labour in “The City of the End of Things” had put in jeopardy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".