MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161982721 · doi:10.1386/ajpc_00024_1

Nosthetics: Instagram poetry and the convergence of digital media and literature

2020· article· en· W3161982721 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Popular Culture · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNostalgia and Consumer Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPoetryAestheticsSociologyArtSpace (punctuation)Point (geometry)LiteraturePhilosophyLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the proliferation of nostalgic aesthetics in Instagram poetry (‘instapoetry’). Though often overlooked, the relationship between the platform and the poetry itself is a vibrant entry point into debates about the handwritten, analogue and vintage styles of instapoetry. Connecting modernist and postmodernist arguments about nostalgia, this article provides a critical and conceptual lens with which to analyse the visual aspects of nostalgic aesthetics – referred to as ‘nosthetics’ – characteristic of instapoetry, investigating how and why the genre impersonates the pre-digital, analogue past. Combining scholarship on platforms, nostalgia and instapoetry shows how the concept of nosthetics can be used as a framework for literary and visual analysis of instapoetry. The theoretical framework proposed recommends three developments for those researching nostalgic aesthetics in instapoetry. First, greater attention should be paid to the platform. Second, engagement with scholarship on popular culture and nostalgia is needed. Finally, it is insightful to return to the notion of space at the heart of Johannes Hofer's original definition of nostalgia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it