Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poetry offers a valuable resource at this moment of need for language that not only informs but also connects, enacts, and creates. With this paper, I present a selection of findings from the poetic inquiry phase of my doctoral research examining what happens when we bring people together to read aloud and discuss poetry and short stories. I create and share three sets of poems: found poems from the transcripts of my interviews with reading group participants, found poems from the work of relevant theorists, and threshold poems that weave in my voice as the poet-researcher. The poems reveal how the cultivated liminal space of shared reading engenders a practice of listening otherwise that facilitates resonant relations. « Comme si une écharde était sortie d'elle »: Une enquête poétique de la lecture partagée RésuméLa poésie est une ressource précieuse pendant cette ère où on a besoin de langage qui, non seulement informe, mais aussi connecte, promulgue et crée. Dans cet article, je présente une sélection de résultats tirés de la phase d'enquête de ma recherche doctorale, qui examine ce qui arrive quand on rassemble des gens pour lire à voix haute et discuter d'œuvres littéraires. Je crée et partage trois ensembles de poèmes: des poèmes trouvés dans les transcriptions de mes entrevues avec les participants du groupe de lecture, des poèmes trouvés dans les travaux de théoriciens pertinents ainsi que des poèmes de seuil qui incluent ma voix en tant que chercheuse-poète. Les poèmes révèlent comment l'espace liminal cultivé par la lecture partagée peut engendrer une pratique d'écoute autrement seulement vécue par le biais du bien-être relationnel. Mots-clésLecture partagée; Enquête poétique
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".