Poetry and process: Glad in the Ruthless Furnance / Poésie et procédé : être joyeux dans l’impitoyable fournaise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Poets use sensory imagery and perception, memory and experience, free association and contemplation to join psychic and material worlds, and to honour both emotional and discursive truths. Through multiple drafts, free-writing and research, the author unpacks her own reflections and poems to demonstrate the process by which intuition and personal insight are crafted for public understanding. This poetic process suggests that scholarly discourses of the arts and the humanities need not always fall into the quantitative/qualitative binary, but that both heart and mind are required to some degree in the seeking of wisdom.Keywords: imagery, craft, metaphor, cadence, tone, sensory perception, memory, intuition, contemplationRésumé : Les poètes utilisent l’imagerie sensorielle et la perception, la mémoire et l’expérience ainsi que l’association libre et la contemplation, pour unifier les univers psychique et matériel et célébrer à la fois les vérités émotionnelles et discursives. Par le biais de multiples ébauches, d’écriture libre et de recherches, l’auteure partage ses réflexions et poèmes pour décrire le procédé par lequel intuition et points de vue personnels sont façonnés dans le but d’être compris par le public. Ce procédé poétique donne à penser que les discours érudits sur les arts et les sciences humaines ne doivent pas obligatoirement être de nature binaire quantitative ou qualitative mais que cœur et esprit sont, dans une certaine mesure, indispensables à la quête de la sagesse. Mots-clés : imagerie, art, métaphore, cadence, ton, perception sensorielle, mémoire, intuition, contemplation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".