MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399386808 · doi:10.18290/rh247211.8s

Patrick Lane and Lorna Crozier on Gardens and Cats: Memoirs of Loss and Sustenance

2024· article· en· W4399386808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Agnieszka Rzepa

Bibliographic record

VenueRoczniki Humanistyczne · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustenanceMemoirArtArt historyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patrick Lane and Lorna Crozier, both prominent Canadian poets, spent together over four decades as partners and later as a married couple. While original and unique in their respective visions and concepts they present in their poetry, both often focus on the deep links between human and non-human, people and the world of animate and inanimate nature. This focus is also prominent in their memoirs: Lane’s There Is a Season: A Memoir in a Garden (2004; published in the US as What the Stones Remember: A Life Rediscovered), and Crozier’s Through the Garden: A Love Story (With Cats) (2020). This article focuses specifically on the literal and metaphoric meanings and roles of gardens and cats in the process of coming to terms with loss (in particular death) and change as described in the two memoirs. The former is Lane’s meditation on the process of recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction, which is accompanied by a reflection on his past, in particular his relationship with his mother—all told in the context of his work on developing his garden. One of his poignant conclusions is “What we are is a garden”, picked up by Crozier in Through the Garden, which explores the last two years of Lane’s life, marked by grave illness, and the story of their relationship—a life lived with cats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoczniki HumanistyczneSame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207