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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".