Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the process of electronic communication, even in its most aesthetic and poetic aspects, the identity of both of the sender and the recipient seems to be completely diminished. In its veiling of essential human data such as gender, nationality, ethnicity…etc, e-poetics seems to break the conventional author-reader connection. It does not permit much, if any, presupposed agreements upon common human and aesthetic values. Such “e-distribution of thought, or e-philosophy” (Beaulieu 2002) (6), as Beaulieu terms it, seems to devoid conventional author-reader agreement upon, at least, one common aspect such as time, space, context, emotions, or any mutual human concerns. The question that comes to mind here is: does not such deliberate dissociation of actual author-reader connection, both explicit and implicit, create other hidden forms of e-associations? Does not such a staunch attack upon the egoistic presence of both of reader and author open the back door for another collective ego that, at least virtually, shares the same aesthetic interests of claimed omnipotence presence? This paper, therefore, will attempt to answer these questions in the light of the work of most recent Canadian e-poet, critic and publisher; Derek Beaulieu.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".