Bibliographic record
Abstract
“I have done more log rolling and attending to other people's affairs, Joyce, Lewis, Gaudier, etc. (don't regret it),” wrote Pound to Margaret Anderson, the editor of the Little Review in 1921. “But I am in my own small way, a writer myself” ( EPLR , 266). This is not a tone one often hears from the mastermind of the Great English Vortex, who thought of himself as an inventor, an instigator, an artist who caused the careers of other artists to flourish because he himself was flourishing. But by the time his London years were drawing to a close (he would move to Paris at the end of 1920), Pound was deeply worried that he was known not primarily as an artist but as a patron, a facilitator, an influencer. Although he had offered crucial aesthetic and economic support to T. S. Eliot, Ford Madox Ford, H. D., Robert Frost, James Joyce, Wyndham Lewis, Marianne Moore, William Carlos Williams, and W. B. Yeats, his early Cantos were languishing. “I am wracked by the seven jealousies,” wrote Pound to Eliot after they had worked together on the manuscript of The Waste Land , “and cogitating an excuse for always exuding my deformative secretions in my own stuff, and never getting an outline” ( SL , 169). Eliot took pains to honor Pound’s crucial contribution to The Waste Land , not only dedicating the poem to him but with the phrase “ il miglior fabbro ” (the phrase Dante used to describe the Provenc¸al poet Arnaut Daniel) associating Pound with an artist whom Pound himself considered one of the greatest inventors in Western literature. Privately, however, Eliot was worried. “He is becoming forgotten,” he wrote of Pound to a mutual friend. “I am worried as to what is to become of him.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.064 |
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".