Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 1939, only a few months after Germany invaded Poland, Ezra Pound set forth a propaganda plan for America, sharing it first with Cornelio di Marzio, editor of Meridiano di Roma (a fascist newspaper already publishing Pound's articles), and then with various representatives of the Italian government. The plan concerned a wide-ranging series of publications, but in pressing forward – Pound was politely rebuffed in December, then again more firmly in April – he shifted his emphasis from print to radio. This was not a surprising turn. The disruption of shipping made print an unreliable medium for reaching the USA, and Pound had come to believe (as he told an Italian functionary) that “the absolute predominance of Jews in the North American press…obstructs in an absolute fashion the possibility of making [Italy's] voice heard in the United States.” Though no great lover of the radio (Pound thought it a “God damn destructive and dispersive devil of an invention” [ SL , 342]), he had gained some small experience of the technology in preparing his operas for the BBC, and had developed an appreciation for the medium's political reach in considering the career of Father Coughlin. In 1936, offering The Listener a series of essays on what he would do as “minister of Kulchur in Utopia,” Pound was told by the editor, “If you want to be a Minister…you will have to broadcast” (quoted in EPRO , 196). By May of 1940, he had come to the same conclusion, working out “a lucid rhetorical scheme” for radio propaganda for the United States with numbered points grouped under the headings “scope” and “methods.” Eventually, Pound's perseverance paid off.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.215 | 0.113 |
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".