Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since it was first performed in the 1936 film Born to Dance, Cole Porter's “I've Got You under My Skin” has proven to be an important pop standard for a wide range of artists, not the least of whom is Frank Sinatra. When polled, Sinatra's fans and critics frequently rank “Under My Skin” among the greatest ever Sinatra recordings. Commentators have tried to explain the song's immense appeal in terms of its supposedly straightforward, if feverish, sexuality. This essay suggests that a turn back to Porter's lyrics reveals a more complicated picture. “Under My Skin” is less about achieving heterosexual unity than it is about probing and confronting an interior multiplicity – much as the textual surface of Sinatra's recording reveals two constitutive but finally discrete and irresolvable American musical selves. This essay returns Porter's lyrics to their historical and literary context to argue that “Under My Skin” represents a popular expression of the modernist anxiety over the split self – a trope that characterizes many of Porter's great songs, which contain the high and the low, the bottom and the top, beneath the same shining skin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".