Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in November 1919, looking back from the end of the decade in which he entered (and transformed) London literary culture, Ezra Pound characterizes the state of literary criticism in England near the beginning of “the Asquith regime,” close to the time of his 1908 arrival in that country, as deader than mutton, as I have endlessly noted, it was dead because ideas are disliked…Literary criticism was dead because official and accepted figures like Sir Henry Newbolt were much more concerned with an external and personal correctness than with an internal depth. They were much more anxious to look tidy and emit the seven or eight ligneous bleats required on all polite occasions than to discover international standards and stimulae. ( EPCP , iii : 354) The heavy hand of caricature carries the extreme truth for Pound of his earlier, activist perception and program, which have by now settled into their customary antipathies. These oppositions feature on one side the dead hand of literary convention and insular hebetudes and, on the other, the fresher energies of a transatlantic intelligentsia and pan-European avant-garde, whose experimental verve and inventive temper are coincident in every practical respect with the nascent strengths of the movement we know now as “modernism.” Pound's part in the triumphalist narratives of modernism is of course considerable, including his work both as poet and literary critic and his roles, severally, as contributor, chronicler, agent provocateur, and scold. Yet the larger parts of the narrative of heroic modernism were drafted ex post facto ; what they gain in boldness of feature and attraction of animosity, they give away in circumstantial complexity, in the thickness of actual inaugural motivations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.013 |
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".