Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many collective volumes, this has been long in the making and has demanded much of its contributors, who have patiently undertaken revisions over the years.It began life as a three-day seminar on "Rhythm in Lyric, Literary Th eory, and Literary History, " at the meeting of the American Comparative Literature Association meeting in Vancouver in April, 2011.We thank the authors of the thirteen initial presentations and the participants in three days of lively discussions, which overfl owed into mealtimes and convinced us that we had a very promising foundation for an important volume on rhythm.Th e great editor Helen Tartar, who inspired so many splendid projects in the humanities, was encouraging from the fi rst, and aft er her tragic death her colleagues at Fordham, especially Tom Lay and his team, have been extraordinarily helpful in bringing this project to fruition.Two anonymous readers for the Press off ered a range of pertinent comments that led both to improvements of individual essays and to the expansion of the collection to include powerful contributions by scholars who were not involved in the Vancouver sessions.We are grateful for their participation and for the patience of the original contributors as the project evolved.Haun Saussy, our series editor, advised us and assisted with many of the volume's essays.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".