Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes Paul Dutton’s concrete poem, “Phoenix,” and explores how visual and sonic elements of the text intertwine to create a distinct type of phoenix situated within the poem itself and within Canadian literary history. This paper examines “Phoenix” under the lens of Canadian concrete poet bpNichol’s theory of literary ’pataphysics. bpNichol’s ’pataphysics views individual letters, punctuation, and even space on the page as distinct signifiers that help to shape the meaning of the poem. Since concrete poetry relies on the visual appearance of text to depict meaning, bpNichol’s ’pataphysics is particularly relevant towards the analysis of concrete poetry. Using ’pataphysics, this paper examines how Dutton’s arrangements of linguistic, visual, and sonic signifiers on the page represent the phoenix’s eternal cycle of death and revival. These signifiers also influence the significance of the epitaph of the late bpNichol within the poem. While the epitaph represents bpNichol’s death, the poem also contradicts this notion through stylistic techniques that resemble and "renew" bpNichol’s poetic style. bpNichol specifically influenced the spread of concrete poetry throughout Canada in the 1960s and remains a significant figure within the genre. Although many scholars have analyzed bpNichol’s influence on Canadian concrete poetry, this paper explores the reciprocal relationship between bpNichol’s impact on Dutton’s poetics and Dutton’s resurrection of bpNichol through his own poetry after bpNichol’s death. “Phoenix” arranges various signifiers on the page to create a phoenix that signifies the endless renewal of the late bpNichol’s stylistic influence on Canadian concrete poetry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".