Scriptorium: Creating an Open-Access Creative Writing Journal in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2012, Creative Writing has been an official concentration within the Graduate Program in Letters at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) in Porto Alegre, Brazil. PUCRS is still the only institution offering Creative Writing courses across all levels (undergraduate, MA, PhD, workshops, non-credit courses) in the country. Within this context, we created Scriptorium, our first Creative Writing Studies journal. Linked to the Graduate Program in Letters and EDIPUCRS (the university press), Scriptorium publishes articles on the creative process, literary translation, Creative Writing pedagogy, as well as fiction and poetry. In our editorial team, we have faculty members, graduate, and undergraduate students. Every article is peer-reviewed, and the journal is open access and published online. The present paper aims to offer an account of the creation of our journal, drawing from my experience as editor. I will share our publishing process, the challenges in the dialogue between Creative Writing and Academia in Brazil, and our views for the future of this kind of publication, hoping that our experience can prove useful to other researchers and institutions wanting to publish similar open access journals.
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 | 0.025 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".