Bibliographic record
Abstract
What one tries to do in an ekphrastic poem—a poem inspired by a work of art—is what one tries to do in any poem: to capture something in a way that is faithful to all its facets and addresses both its known and unknown aspects. Blending first-person creative non-fiction with craft/pedagogy, this chapter discusses the writer’s early encounters with art and the development of her ekphrastic practice, particularly through her work with the late Ottawa poet Diana Brebner. She brings her experience to the classes she teaches at Concordia University, in which she takes her students to the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. The essay suggests various ways a writer may approach an artwork and considers the ethical challenges, and others, which ekphrasis may pose. How might the interdisciplinarity of the process expand the nature of writing and pedagogy in other ways? A recent experiment in “inside-out ekphrasis,” in which poets in the writer’s graduate workshop created work in other artistic disciplines (in which they might have no expertise) that drew upon their thesis projects, was one of the most rewarding experiences of her teaching career. Shaken out of their usual practices, the students lost themselves to find themselves.
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) | 0.190 | 0.011 |
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".