Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a doctoral candidate ever-deepening my understandings of arts-based research methods, in general, and performative and poetic methods of inquiry in particular, this paper advances several new theories of Vox in poetic inquiry (Prendergast, 2009, 2015, 2020), playing with the generative possibilities found with/in such poeticizing as writing method, performative gesture, and reflexive praxis, while addressing intersections between the personal/public and poetry as political currency. Woven as a métissage of poetic offerings within theoretical exposition, this essay links theory, research methods, and personal explorations with/in poetic inquiry. Found poems and original compositions punctuate the proposal of several new Vox to help elucidate our myriad voices within a growing chorus of poetic inquirers singing to a variety of purposes. A journey through methodological praxis unfolds, poses further questions, and encourages ongoing exploration and practice of poetic research methodologies in diverse, rhizomatically fruiting tendrils and directions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".