Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collecting contemporary poetry is often a low priority for libraries, but interest in poetry is rising, and many library patrons have the potential to become poetry readers. Building a collection of poetry chapbooks can maximize the impact of a renewed poetry collecting effort because the poetry chapbook is an accessible, high-interest, and often low-cost form that captures the cutting edge of the poetic field. I introduce the poetry chapbook and its creative and social functions and describe various avenues for building a chapbook collection, including acquisition strategies, examples of digital initiatives such as participatory chapbook repository projects, and notes on promoting engagement. The community-building potential and links to higher-level goals such as diverse collecting, local interest, and cultural preservation allow chapbook collections to add unique value to a variety of public, academic, special, and school library contexts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".