LETTERS ON THE PAGE AND ON THE SCREEN: CONCRETE POETRY AND “MOVIES OF WORDS” BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE POEM BY BPNICHOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses two texts by the Canadian poet Barry Phillip Nichol (known under the pseudonym bpNichol): the poem Evening’s Ritual from 1967, printed in the collection of visual poems Konfessions of an Elizabethan Fan Dancer (1967), and the poem Letter from 1984, included in the digital work First Screening (1984). The 1967 text belongs to the tradition of concrete poetry, while the 1984 text is closer to the art of cinema and electronic literature of the 20th and 21st centuries. Importantly, the 1984 text attempts to translate the 1967 text into the digital realm, as the content of the texts is identical. The researcher highlights the difference in the performative realizations of the same statement. The author notes that in the case of the poems Evening’s Ritual and Letter from the collection First Screening, the intended meaning can be identified not so much with the proposition as with the performative effect produced on the recipient. In other words, the meaning is realized primarily in the realm of the pragmatics of artistic communication rather than semantics. By exploring the performative effect, the author suggests finding it in the structure of “scriptural imagination” (J. McGann), the preconception of the experience of writing, and notes the difference in configurations of imagination in both texts. While the printed text of Evening’s Ritual allows the reader to be a co-author of the statement, the digital text of Letter excludes the reader from the process of meaning-making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".