Ideas in Circulation: The Aesthetics of Transmission in Mina Loy’s “Feminist Manifesto”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article centers on Mina Loy’s “Feminist Manifesto,” written in 1914. It aims to look more closely at how the manifesto deals with transmission – and possible breakdowns in transmission – from textual conception to publication. I argue that even though the “Feminist Manifesto” participates in the circulation of Modernist aesthetics by exploring the place of women within early twentieth century movements, its generic instability points to the challenges of textual transmission. Though “Absolute Demolition” is deemed necessary, the manifesto borrows from the rhetoric of various artistic, scientific and political communities of the time. The manifesto’s paratextual apparatus hints at more intimate forms of Modernist transmissions. Addressed to Mabel Dodge Luhan in a letter that unveils the poet’s inspirations and asks for feedback, Loy’s “fragment of Feminist tirade” cultivates intertextual and interpersonal dialogues. However, the manifesto was never widely disseminated among Loy’s contemporaries as it was only published years after her death. If the poet’s publication history, marked by misspellings and ambiguities, often evidences gaps in communication between the different actors of textual production, the “Feminist Manifesto” further resists print as a medium of transmission. Consequently, this paper will also look at some editorial obstacles surrounding the diffusion of the manifesto today.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".