MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249598964 · doi:10.1353/mar.2021.0057

Spermaceti

2021· article· en· W4249598964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Hawkins

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œMassachusetts review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEducational Reforms and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMistakeBeautyWhite (mutation)Art historyHistoryArtAestheticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spermaceti Amanda Hawkins (bio) Keywords Amanda, Hawkins, spermaceti, whale, scrimshaw, land, whaler, oil At first the men thought it a store of foggy white cum.I can forgive this mistake—desire can interrupt logic. The scrimshaw teeth show portraits of women and sirens,jawbones of panoramic landscapes— land and lovers. I want compassion,but I also believe they were as awful as I think—their markall over the oceans and coasts, taking whatever little beauty remained of those beasts.Easy to let myself hate the men in all they desired and all they do, say, take.Did anyone speak out against it? This is the moment I become truly afraidI am hardly doing any different. Often quiet when I need to speak. All logic lost at a woman's touch.I will use every resource I can find to get what I want. I am insatiably curious.What would I choose if I were a man in a time of whaling? What bodies I would reach for and how?What bone would I pick, and would I take a knife to it? [End Page 351] Amanda Hawkins amanda hawkins is a Tin House and Bread Loaf Scholar, a three-time Pushcart nominee, and a recipient of the Editor's Prize for Poetry at The Florida Review. Her work can be found in Boston Review, The Cincinnati Review, Mid-American Review, Orion, Terrain, and Tin House. She holds an MA in theological studies from Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, and is currently an MFA candidate at UC Davis. Copyright © 2021 The Massachusetts Review, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œMassachusetts reviewSame topicEducational Reforms and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207