Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceiving poetic inquiry as a space for exploring, perceiving, and imagining, I present poetic (art-making through lyric and figural languages) and simultaneously inquiry (a research-method) through a series of autoethnographic (in)habitings. Weaving poems, lyrical narratives, metaphoric, and speculative reveries, I cast a loose net of inquiry (a method theorized and practiced as orb-weaving) into multi-dimensional spaces to examine the affective intensities of longing. Through temporal, imagistic, and spatial slippages (the openings in the net of entanglements), spaces are left open to experience the sensations of being in the world. A demonstration and discussion of an architectonics of structure and language-in-use theorizes metaphors to support poetic inquiry-in-the-making—web, hinge, and circumambulations—and poetry’s resources—a poiesis of unspoken and kinetic gesturings. Endnotes provide explanations of the conceptual metaphors employed and notes on research processes and influences. Freed from the bonds of explanation and findings, this poetic inquiry is crafted to engage readers in multi-dimensional spaces of sensory, shape-shifting, and (re)cognition of the open beauty of (re)searching—exploring the poetic, ephemeral, and shimmering data of live/fe worlds. The ultimate goal is to create (in)habitings that are multi-verses of feeling, longing, and love. Longing—a kind of ache in both method and subject—resides in the spaces of in-between-ness.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.020 |
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".