Poetici matematice și emoții în centrifugă: importuri terminologice din științele tari în discursurile poetice (semi)periferice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the texture of current poetic formulae in the Romanian poetic space (alt-lit, digital poetry, digital-realist, digital-scientist, retro-digital, minimalist-biographical poetry, etc.), the experimental-scientific one emerges, marginally, converting a voice imported from the hard sciences (Mathematics, Physics, Biology, and so on). Using as methodological support the theory of combined and uneven development, this paper aims to analyze the (semi-)peripheral poetic discourses modulated by terminological imports from the exact sciences and the way in which the affects are systematized in two zones of the world literary system (central vs. semi-peripheral). The hypothesis of departure is that, in contrast to central cultural spaces (USA, Canada, etc.), where there are many techno poetic discourses, academic directions (courses, associations, research projects, journals) and a solid critical system, in the Romanian (semi-peripheral) cultural space, there is a well-defined critical apparatus on mathematical poetics (from the 20th century), but, at the present time, there is a lack of critical research on these collections of poetry, which frame an emerging direction (with the collections of Gabi Eftimie or val chimic). Therefore, we consider that the extreme-contemporary volumes worth analyzing in this sense are Dmitri-INTJ by Dmitri Miticov (OMG Publishing, 2023) and vom trece de Marte dar nu imediat (We Shall Pass Mars but not Immediately) by Șerban Mihalache (Max Blecher Publishing House, 2023), both of them nuancing their dynamics by appealing to centrifuged emotions, to “rationaffects”.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".