Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The notion that poetic ‘voice’ works in some basic opposition to print culture developed in the avant-garde, Beat, and Black Arts circles under the influence of Charles Olson and the Canadian oralists, and later some of their post-structuralist opponents. But its adoption as the page/stage divide of today maintains their split between reserved and immediate poetics, and dovetails with a dangerous ‘sonic colour line’. Opposing the oralists’ idea of voice as notion of the voice as unmediated communication, this chapter argues that the poetry reading works by feedback loops, where the poet’s voice goes out and return continually freighted with contextual information. The poet is involved in both expression and audience-formation, working with their surroundings and permeated by influences beyond their control—an idea closer to what Barthes and Derrida understood as voice and to Olson and Baraka’s actual practice. Performed poems should be recontextualized within the turn to poetries which reckon with surroundings and infrastructure, including print, site-specific, and immersive encounter.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".