Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding a voice & a style is NB.... Can one make intelligent beauty?Surely by now! [27] Engel appears to have used this cahier over a three-year period (1981-83), which causes some confusion when attempting to date entries.The opening pages of the cahier contain notes Engel made during a fall 1981 2 trip to Germany as a delegate of the Writers' Union of Canada at a conference about unions for artists and writers. 3 The trip was also an opportunity for a dose of cultural activity (Engel took in several art galleries and the Frankfurt Book Fair) and for a side trip to Sweden. 4 As the excerpt from [4] indicates, Engel's notes are sketchy, and not reproduced in full here.Also scaled down are notes the author took on the Establishment of Royal Principalities in Canada and on "names of former European aristocrats to be avoided" [8-10], which seem to have been intended for a story she was contemplating.The entry "Satori," written July 13,1982, recorded more of Engel's responses to developments in her health.What stands out once again is the vital place writing occupied throughout the author's illness.Even " 1 / 2 hour of writing [was] enough" [11] to help get through a difficult stretch.'To write seriously again, I want that very much," Engel wrote [13].She reviewed the manuscript "Elizabeth and the Golden City" over and over in her mind, and wondered whether her own story might not be a better one to write [12].Even in bleak moments, Engel's critical eye remained sharp.The writer in her could step back and comment, as she did about a description of a mushroom-hunting expedition: "Some run-on sentences-development rambling, inaccurate establishment of place & time.Who is John?" [18
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.676 | 0.489 |
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".