Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is an experiment in improvisatory criticism, and the introduction lays out a new interpretive rationale for reading Homer’s Odyssey together with a series of twentieth- and early twenty-first-century novels that share that poem’s interest in travel and return. Philosophers and musicians alike highlight the productive nature of improvisation—we gain new understanding of ourselves through improvised encounters with others in an inherently experimental and even deceptive process of self-enactment. Odysseus is famous for his metis, exactly the kind of experimental or practical reasoning upon which improvisation depends, and close readings of his encounters abroad with the Cyclops and at home with Eumaeus, Telemachus, Penelope, and Laertes show that Odysseus’ lies and acts of deception do not temporarily disguise his true identity but rather enable him to construct himself and his world in new ways. Read in this improvisatory context, the Odyssey is shown to focus on the creative instability of what it means to be Odysseus and these insights about the creative potential of the improvisatory encounter extend to my goals for the book overall. By putting the Odyssey in contact with other texts, we as readers are participating in a kind of improvisatory interpretive experiment—each text emerges from these literary encounters in a new light, and spaces are opened up for new readings. Rather than remain a stable text to which we as readers return time and again to find it unchanged, the Odyssey, together with the texts with which it engages, changes and adapts with each new literary encounter.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.512 | 0.352 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".