A Walk in the Park: A Virtual Workshop Exploring Intertextuality and Implicit Powers Within Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focusing on a variety of possible presentational styles of a personal poem, this article explores the problematics of the interplay of the medium and the message. It brings in the theoretical concepts of intertextuality (how previous knowledge impacts one’s reading), media(tion) (how the choice of dissemination through printed texts, spoken texts, images, or combination of these changes the content’s meaning), presence (how readers and/or audience members are situated ontologically and axiology, depending on whether the presentations are recorded or live), the degree of specificity (how detailed information influences interpretative stances), sequencing (how to provide alternatives to the canon of traditional, linear, expository writing), contexture (how the presence of images, gestures, and sounds provides textures to the context examined) and arts-based dissemination (moving beyond flat, black and white printed texts through weblinks). Structured as a virtual workshop based on ones that I have presented, it provides writers and readers with a range of possible choices of how to engage with/in poetic inquiry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".