Foreword
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers published in this collection were given at a summer workshop organized under the auspices of the Calgary Institute for the Humanities and held 15-17 August 1982 at the University of Calgary.All of the sessions prompted thoughtful papers and a lively exchange of views.The conference was intended to consider the entire literary process rather than its specifically critical aspect, and in this respect it seems to have been successful.One of the strengths of the conference was that the writers revealed such a variety of styles and approaches.This variety gave the meeting two kinds of dialogue between writers and readers: one was the interplay of suggestion and response between speakers and audience, and the other was a debate between the speakers themselves, in their capacity as writer-readers.It is this second kind of dialogue, and only this one, which we could attempt to transfer to the medium of a published collection.The spontaneous dialogue of the live situation is necessarily lost, so we have had to concentrate on the more formalized debate of the prepared papers in their written form.To this end we have tried to preserve as much as possible of the variety of styles which these papers represent.There can never be uniformity of tone in such a collection, nor did we try to impose it here.Those papers which are intensely personal, which examine the relationship between writer and reader in the true sense of temoignage, complement the more theoretically oriented essays.However, in order to ensure a certain fluidity of dialogue between the texts, we have had to normalize to a degree certain stylistic traits such as choice of gender, paragraphing, use of rhetorical questions and use of quotations.Some of these modifications deserve special comment.A major problem in the editorial process was the choice
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.752 | 0.650 |
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".