Bibliographic record
Abstract
What did imagism do for Pound and what, in turn, did Pound do for imagism? The answers yield “a language to think in” ( LE , 194) regarding Pound's emphasis on precision as a means of carving distinctions between terms. That process, an ethical end-in-itself, also delineates components of a Poundian model culture. Imagism originated in the tea room of the British Museum. Or so its narrative would have it. In the fall of 1912, Pound read H.D.'s poem, “Hermes of the Ways,” there in the company of H.D. and Richard Aldington. After making changes, Pound rapidly wrote “H.D. Imagiste” at the bottom of the typed sheet now slashed with his pencil marks, according to H.D. in her memoir, End to Torment . Of course, imagism was not a whimsical inspiration. Pound had been led to this concept through his study of Arnaut Daniel, Cavalcanti, and Dante, writers of precision and detail. He had actually formulated the term “imagist” when reworking the proofs of Ripostes in the spring of 1912. By 1914, his anthology Des Imagistes appeared, soon challenged by Amy Lowell's fuller and competitive anthology, Some Imagist Poets (1915). The politics of the movement soon overtook the quality of the poetry and Pound turned elsewhere. But precisely because Pound transcended imagism, it plots horizon points for marking Pound’s development. A poet wed to imagism necessarily focuses on “small things,” risking confinement to “a poetic of stasis.” Yet by presenting at one moment multiple matters arranged in interactive “complexes”; by creating illusions of “freedom from time and space limits” ( LE , 4); this small static aesthetic set the course for the modernist long poem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".