Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE LUMINOUS DETAILS OF A NEW POETICS Despite the fact that Pound was prodigiously prolific as a poet, essayist, and letter writer, he wrote no systematic treatise on poetics. Nonetheless, his extensive writings on poetry are often memorable: “Literature is news that stays news” ( ABCR , 29); “Artists are the antennae of the race” ( ABCR , 73, 81); “Dichten=condensare” ( ABCR , 36, 92). But the definition he repeated most often – five times – was one he borrowed from Dante: “Poetry is a composition of words set to music.” Simple as this definition may seem, it contains the nucleus of an entire poetics; that is, it addresses, when fleshed out fully, the essential questions of any poetics: what is the nature of the language from which a poem is made, who makes it, and for what end or purpose? In tapping Dante for this definition, Pound is not simply reaching back to a literary giant to gain authority; he goes to Dante because he believed the definition to be sound and because Dante articulated his definition at what, for Pound, was a crucial turning point in European literary history. Pound argues that during Dante's time, poets, especially Petrarch, but even Dante himself, stopped making poems in the ancient tradition, started by the Greek lyric poets and extending up through the medieval period. That ancient practice understood poems to be a joining of music and words; neither music nor language predominated – they were simply inconceivable apart from one another. The disruption of this poetics, built around the joining of music and poetry, came when word and sound were separated. Words began to be put in service of philosophical sonnets done in the ornamental style of Petrarch while sounds became strictly the province of musical pieces such as the sonata ( LE , 91).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.011 |
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".