Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poetry to 1920 The poet's job is to define and yet again define till the detail of surface is in accord with the root in justice. Pound, 1935 ( SL 277) Pound's early work consists of rewriting and making new earlier forms of poetic expression. The sestina, Provençal lyric and dramatic monologue are three particular examples of his effort to unite detail and justice, form and ethics. He replaced Swinburne's arabesques with Arnaut Daniel's precision, Pre-Raphaelite elaborations with Imagism's exactness, the “Blaze of color intermingled” with the detail of “Green arsenic smeared on an egg-white cloth” ( CEP 261; EPEW 84). Pound writes in color, with definiteness, elaborating a statement by the American photographer Paul Outerbridge (1896–1958) who said “with black and white you can suggest, but with colour you have to be certain, absolutely certain.” In his poetry and criticism, Pound was, without a doubt, certain. Pound's encounter with the exactness of Chinese poetry at the time he was working out his poetic practice, expressed through Imagism ( c . 1912), and then through his re-vision of Chinese poetry in Cathay (1915), reaffirmed his drive toward precision. His editing and publishing Fenollosa's “The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry” (1919) further clarified this poetic which Dante, Arnaut Daniel, the Provençal poets and the Chinese had advanced. His early, lyrical work, with overtones of Romanticism and the Pre-Raphaelites, culminates in the satiric and multi-voiced “Homage to Sextus Propertius” (1919) and Hugh Selwyn Mauberley (1920).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.607 | 0.396 |
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".