Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Building on recent currents in Dickinson scholarship that investigate the relation between poetic and epistolary address in her letters, this essay documents Dickinson’s practice of sending poems to correspondents, exploring what their highly personal orientation can tell us about Dickinson’s understanding of her work and the intimacies it could foster. Using a survey of 679 poems Dickinson addressed to fifty-two recipients, the essay identifies three distinct modes of addressed poems: as letters, set in letters, and enclosed with letters. Examining the first two of these modes in detail, the essay explores how Dickinson used poetry to build and sustain interpersonal connection. From a riddling note she sent with a basket of apples to her sister-in-law, to lines of consolation embedded in a letter to a friend’s friend, Dickinson’s distinctive employment of poems in epistolary contexts reveals her faith in poetry’s ability to mobilize affect between people and bring them closer together. Moreover, it reveals Dickinson’s concern that a specific, personal—not unspecific, public—addressee was crucial for such affect, which may help to explain her larger turn away from conventional publication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".