MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233912746 · doi:10.1353/jnc.2013.0002

Introduction

2013· article· en· W4233912746 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Max Cavitch

Bibliographic record

VenueJ19 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryPoeticsSophisticationPoliticsLiteratureScholarshipInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryHypertextLiterary criticismHistory of literatureAestheticsVariety (cybernetics)CriticismNew CriticismArtPhilosophyLiterary theoryLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Max Cavitch (bio) Introduction The study of nineteenth-century American poetry and poetics has been enjoying an efflorescence that shows no signs of contracting, as the essays in this special forum attest. Each of the invited contributors has in his or her own way drawn on and extended what the past two decades, especially, have yielded up: (1) vast numbers of long-forgotten poems in need of “recovery” and interpretation; (2) fresh readings of many major poets and poems that had been languishing in inattention; (3) voluminous and well-edited anthologies and editions,1 along with a proliferation of sophisticated electronic databases and hypertext archives,2 which continue to make more and more poetry readily available for reading, scholarship, and classroom use; and (4) criticism of unprecedented variety and sophistication, which has done much to reinterpret and retheorize both established and emergent canons.3 Among the most consequential developments has been the belated recognition of not simply the existence but also the centrality to North American literary and cultural history of poetry by women. And the comparable recovery and demarginalization of poetry by authors of color has also had far more than an additive effect on canon (re)formation. Fundamental reimaginings of American literary history have taken place across a critical terrain now comprehensively reshaped by the salutary seismic pressures of the dialectic between identity politics and the politics of the impersonal. We continue to attend as scrupulously and humbly as possible to the historical situatedness of persons and the plight of subjectivation, while also challenging the [End Page 179] persistent but often misleading equation of poetic language with the manifestation of a personal voice. We have repaired the hasty dismissal of the aesthetic tout court with enhanced sociohistorical approaches to literary form and counterhegemonic reengagements with philosophical aesthetics. And our sharpened awareness of how the constant migrations, free and forced, of elites as well as of the disprized, along with women’s transnational voluntary associationism, has helped us deconstruct the often still tenacious national orientation of literary studies generally. With such vital developments over the years has come the readiness of scholars of nineteenth-century American poetry and poetics to follow—and in many cases to help direct—the movement of critical thinking by various so-called turns: the linguistic, the historical, the ethical, the transatlantic, the transnational, the affective, the material. Long before all of this, of course, there was the turning of a plow at the end of a row that the Greeks called trepein and the Romans vertere, which gave to English the terms trope, for figural turns or shifts in meaning, and verse, for the literal turning of the end of a line. Line breaks have never been the absolute sine qua non of poetry as such, yet the line has always been fundamental to the making of poetry as a particular kind of discourse, turning to make another turn, in what may be recurrent or discordant patterns, as when a minister “lines out” a hymn, or when a blues artist “worries” the line. The line of nineteenth-century American poetry is manifold, in all the ways conjured by the Latin linea: originally, a linen thread or string essential to tasks of gathering, measuring, and ordering: used to make fishing lines and nets, to plumb depths, and to fix verticals in masonry and carpentry; also meaning the stroke or mark of a pencil; and, crucially, a line of descent, as well as a boundary, limit, or ultimate goal. (Let’s agree never to give up gorging on etymologies.) As the lines, or lineages, of American poetry have turned and turned again with the shifting movements of critical thinking, what counts as American poetry has been an abundant source of literary-historical discord: written elsewhere; published elsewhere; frequently imagined to have come from a place existing only retrospectively, if at all; projected onto colonies, regions, territories, and nations, and fitting awkwardly, at best, the shifting measure that came at a certain point to be called the United States. In the present context, nineteenth-century American poetry and poetics are understood chiefly in relation to the North American geographical and linguistic sweep from Canada to [End...

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5740.404

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.179 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJ19Same topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207