Philosophy of Lyric Voice: The Cognitive Value of Page and Performance Poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most writers who deal with overarching questions of poetic value take as their implicit reception context the private encounter of the reader with the on-the-page poem. Even when responding to forms of poetry best experienced in the context of a public performance—most obviously, works of performance poetry that fuse words, physical gestures and vocalizations—they may still frame that response in ways that assume the print-based product as the locus of poetic value. For instance, in awarding the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for poetry to performance poet Tyehimba Jess for his Olio, the committee praised the work for ‘meld[ing] performance art with the deeper art of poetry’. Karen Simecek’s Philosophy of Lyric Voice not only rejects the practice of treating the print poem for the ‘deeper art’ but reverses it. For Simecek, it is ‘performed poetry’—understood as including both public readings of print poetry and performance poetry proper—that is the paradigm for the discipline as a whole (p. 52); by applying such a paradigm, this book proposes, we can achieve a clearer picture of the nature of poetic expression, the network of human relationships that it invokes, and its aesthetic, cognitive and ethical value. The book finds in performed poetry a model of poetic engagement as an encounter between the audience and another perspective—where this encounter teaches new ways to think about and experience the world—and, at the same time, fosters a nuanced recognition of our own perspectival limits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".