Ethics and aesthetics: a conversation with Ilan Stavans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When one Googles Ilan Stavans, one comes across numerous interviews with him, and conversations which prove that Stavans is a luxury as partner in conversation: incisive, lively, straight forward, eloquent, comprehensive, lucid and always crystal clear in his replies.He never beats around the bush.Actually, since the late 1990s, Stavans has devoted his energy to reinvigorating the literary genre of the conversation not as a promotional tool but as an insightful instrument to meditate on the world in general, and to explore his own intellectual and creative world.Moreover, Neal Sokol interviewed Stavans in a book-long volume, Eight Conversations (2004), on his Jewish and Latino heritage; translator Verónica Albin discussed the way the word "love" has changed through the age in the book Love and Language (2007) as well as on topics like libraries and censorship in Knowledge and Censorship (2008), and Canadian journalist Mordecai Drache probes him on the Bible as a work of literature in With All Thine Heart (2010).This dialogue took place, as the concluding event, on Friday, April 25, 2014, during the program "Spaces of Dialogue: International Conference in Transatlantic Literature," organized by Spain's Real Colegio
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".