Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across all of its various and wildly incompatible manifestations, the consistent primary antagonist of the avant-garde is orthodoxy, in Canada or anywhere. When CW profs teach to rule, insisting that students perform our own aesthetic valences, from “Show; don’t tell” to fiction’s transformed protagonist, we end up in the same trap: preaching an orthodoxy that is desperately in need of an avant-garde disruption. The concerted effort to inhabit the aesthetic impetus of each student’s project proposed here asks a lot of teachers, including a humility that is anathema to scholarly training, but this is where the avant-garde can be a useful interruption of normal patterns and habits. Expanding the possible modes of textual production, even inventing new modes, requires more of the teacher and, ultimately, more of the student. It requires an encounter with and even an embrace of the difference between texts, which is akin to the difference between the self and its other. Instead of the conventions many have recently begun to distrust in the workshop model, students and their work might be met on their own terms, might be encouraged to move by their own inner necessity, discovering something vital—art—in the alignment of form and content.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".