MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208866671 · doi:10.1080/23311983.2021.1992084

Animal symbolism in the poetry of Joe Ushie

2021· article· en· W3208866671 on OpenAlexaff
Mathias Iroro Orhero, Friday Akpan Okon

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Arts and Humanities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryEnvironmentalismPoliticsPoeticsContext (archaeology)LiteratureReading (process)AestheticsSociologyHistoryEnvironmental ethicsArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawLinguisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Joe Ushie’s poetry has received critical attention, studies focus mainly on the socio-political and ecological issues prevalent in the poems. Our paper is interested in the way Ushie uses the idea of human-animal metamorphosis and animal symbolism in expressing his ecological and socio-political concerns, personal vision, and other forms of activism. Animals have particular importance in the African socio-cultural context, and there are many instances of human-animal transformation or animal symbolism in oral traditions. We argue that Ushie draws from this paradigm in the adoption of animals in his poetry and poetics. Our close reading of Ushie’s Popular Stand and Other Poems and Lambs at the Shrine reveals the use of animals as symbols in the advocacy for ecological preservation and balance and the characterisation of humans as animals or vice versa as a form of satire against political leaders and oppressors. The archetypal significance of the animals represented in the selected poems reflects Ushie’s vision, and through their symbolism, issues bordering on socio-political malaise and environmentalism are foregrounded.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Arts and HumanitiesSame topicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207