Epiphany in Echoland: Cross-Cultural Intertextuality in Yang Mu's Poetry and Poetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguished from simply rendering an allusion or loan image in different language, cross-cultural intertextuality can be defined not only as term describing work's relation to particular prior texts from another country, but also as designation of its active participation in the discursive space of world culture. 1 Such active presence of an intertext iterates the new concept of world literature as a mode of circulation and emphasizes that a work only has an effective life as world literature, whenever, and wherever, it is actively present within literary system beyond that of its original culture (Damrosch 4-5). The strategic use of poetic form, internal structure, imagery and meaning from foreign text constitutes in work an intertextual space — an echoland where dialogues across cultures take place. Yet unlike the echo chamber of postmodern textual free-play, the interactions among texts of various sources may result in an epiphany close to the self-conscious expression of the modernist kind. 2
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".