Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pound's fascism has long been controversial. One point of agreement among critics, both detractors and enthusiasts, is that Pound's idea of Italian fascism should be distinguished, at least in part, from its reality. As K. Ruthven stated, “Italian Fascism as a political practice, developed at a particular historical moment and in particular economic conditions, was related to Pound's ‘Fascism’ only by way of adjacency.” The “Mussolini” of Jefferson and/or Mussolini was “a figment of Pound's imagination, the heroic agent of a ‘fascism’ as remote from Italian Fascism as ‘Mussolini’ was from Mussolini.” The difficulty encountered by early Pound scholars in coping with this issue led to the creation of a divided image, as if the poet who helped create modernism were one thing, and the fascist who broadcasted in favor of Mussolini were another. Studies carried out from the late seventies on helped recompose the fracture, demonstrating that Pound's poetry cannot be separated from his political beliefs. A common assumption has been that Pound came to fascism via economics, and that his adherence was motivated by a thorough examination of Mussolini’s programs in the light of guild socialism. But as recent studies have pointed out, the emergence of Pound’s interest in fascism seems less indebted to economic theory than to the poet’s aesthetic concerns. The economic element was undeniably important, but it seems to have come in late. Pound’s enthusiasm for Mussolini was rather rooted in his concern with the role of the artist in modern society and essentially bound to the project of his epic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".