Bibliographic record
Abstract
Press, who saw the value of this book and patiently encouraged the idea of bringing it out again.And now, in a different vein, one turns to the book.The Making of Modern Poetry in Canada was made by Louis Dudek and myself.As time wore on and it went, gratifyingly, through three printings (two in hardcover and one in paperback) and became a rarity in the used book market, discussions arose from time to time with colleagues who used the book as a teaching resource and between ourselves about the possibility of some kind of updating.Various ideas popped up with everything from a straight reprint to some suggestions that the book be expanded or that it even have a sequel that would carry the discussion into the postmodernist period.All of this remained in the realm of sporadic and random conversations with, looking back at them now, a discernible waning of enthusiasm on our part due, in some small measure, to the fact that several proposals had been floated by other potential editors to develop an expanded version of the book.Nothing seems to have come of those plans.Meanwhile, Dudek became less and less happy with how the high modernism in which he had been such an important participant had evolved into what soon acquired its own label: postmodernism.This was a complex literary phenomenon with which Dudek became increasingly disaffected, and our idea to reissue The Making of Modern Poetry in Canada simply stalled.The present effort, therefore, is a taking up of what had sat in the offing for too long.The original text with its sectional miniintroductions that Dudek and I had written those years ago still remains, I believe, to the point, and has been left untouched.The documents of their time remain the documents of their time.Others may choose to see them differently or, perhaps, prefer to assemble their own collection(s), and offer them supported by their own theses.We told Desmond Pacey as much when he grumbled about our
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".