The Relationship Between Reader and Writer in Contemporary Haiku Poems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to look at the relationship of communication and readers’ participation in contemporary haiku poems. The poems selected for exemplification in this paper will be from Haiku Canada Members’ Anthology 2024. No Two Alike. The way in which readers work their way through meaning will be underlined, through free associations and use of universal symbols, and also based on common life experiences. A reader response approach will be adopted, since it has in view the way readers react to any text. Textual analysis will be combined with the readers’ emotional reactions and interpretations based on personal life experiences and cultural background. We can speak of communities of readers, in this case made up by the Western culture writers of an originally Japanese poem, the haiku. It is adapted and also compatible with other cultural mindsets. The way readers are engaged in the haiku poetry experience further leads to haiku being used in therapy, to encourage patients to express themselves, and become aware of their emotions, without thinking about the rules of this type of poem.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".