Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wri ting in Our Time: Canada's Radical Poetries in En gl i s h provi des bo t h h i s tori ogra phic and cri tical introdu cti ons to poetry that has been va ri o u s ly de s c ri bed as rad i c a l , ex peri m en t a l , oppo s i ti on a l , ava n t -ga rde , open -form , alternative, or interventionist.We chose the adjective "radical" because its gen eral def i n i ti on-"tending or dispo s ed to make ex treme ch a n ges in ex i s ting vi ews , h a bi t s , con d i ti on s , or insti tuti on s" (Web s ter 's)-en compasses political, social, and aesthetic activities.The radical poetries in this study all enact "extreme changes."In the chapters that follow we discuss a s pects of the Ti s h poeti c s , con c rete and sound poetry, decon s tru ctive poeti c s , and poetry inflected by race , gen der, cl a s s , and sex u a l i ty.Su ch poetries have in com m on a com po s i ti onal process that em ph a s i zes the construction rather than the reflection of self and world-the production of meaning over its consumption.We also note that the social meaning of rad i c a l i ty has ch a n ged dra m a ti c a lly in re s ponse to iden ti ty po l i tics and the global imperatives of the 1 9 80s and '9 0s.We chose our title to emphasize that shift: Wri ting in Our Ti m e refers to both an event held in 1 97 9 and to ou r time (the turn of the twenty-first century).In 1 97 9, the series of seven benefit readings for West Coast literary presses referred to as "Writing in Our Ti m e" fe a tu red a predom i n a n t ly wh i te and male group of poets linked through three interconnected tracks.One started in western Canada with the Ti s h poets and ex ten ded into other sites of ex peri m ental poetics in loc ations across Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".