Bibliographic record
Abstract
With signature aplomb, Ezra Pound wrote in 1928, in the back of the fourth number of his magazine The Exile , about “the periodicals in which the struggle took place.” What we now call modernism had been articulated by this time, and Pound had secured an enviable reputation within the movement; F. R. Leavis later credited him with having helped affect “a new start” and “a decisive reordering of the tradition of English poetry.” By the end of the 1920s, the literary establishment was “ready to feed almost anyone who will write anodyne monographs about” the poetic upheaval in which he had participated, Pound noted, even though it “would never have fed” at the time “any of the men who did the work.” Little magazines, launched without the prospect of commercial success, had provided necessary support, though the esteem in which he held The Dial , The Egoist , The English Review , The Little Review , Poetry , and The Transatlantic Review scarcely implied the scope of his own engagement with such publications. Ezra Pound's Poetry and Prose , a collection of his periodical work over a period of seventy years compiled by Lea Baechler, A. Walton Litz, and James Logenbach, fills eleven quarto volumes, and Donald Gallup's bibliography lists more than seven hundred contributions to magazines before Pound himself launched The Exile . Mark Morrisson points out that while modernist periodicals often “found only small readerships and led brief lives,” writers used these publications to demonstrate to their readers “a lively, even exhilarating, awareness of opposition” to the literary establishment “and of the possibilities that the new century provided for an alternative art to become part of the public sphere.”
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.563 | 0.416 |
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".