MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400732320 · doi:10.3138/utq.93.01.04

The Mechanics of Dwelling: Karen Solie’s Early Poetry and <i>Short Haul Engine</i>

2024· article· en· W4400732320 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert Lecker

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryHistoryLiteratureMechanicsPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Karen Solie’s poetry redefines the ways in which language problematizes contemporary issues such as climate change, the nature of our physical environments, the conception of agency, the politics of gender, and our understanding of the increasingly divergent social orders we inhabit. This article focuses on Solie’s early poetry and her first book, Short Haul Engine. It aims to explore her aesthetic values and to identify some of the prominent motifs and concerns that animate her work. Solie is interested in thinking about the particular conditions and consequences of decisions made, paths taken, relationships begun and broken. But she is also interested in critique as an epistemological form of inquiry: how do we know what we think we know, and what factors account for that knowing? One aesthetic principle uniting many of the poems is the identification of absence as a key to desire – the need to explore desire as a means of accessing what is beautiful through what is lost, absent. Paradoxically, language does not always provide a means of accessing experience; it often gets in the way, turning the person behind the words into a creature of imprecision – the “near miss” of accurate description becoming a central problem in the poetry itself.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207