Bibliographic record
Abstract
FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION OF ‘THE NIGHTFISHING’ in 1955, Norman Macleod wrote to W. S. Graham, enquiring about the possibility of perusing the poem’s early drafts. Graham obliged, sending his friend excerpts of a version of the text from 1949. Attached to the materials is a self-effacing preface which remains unpublished. Held at the National Library of Scotland (along with the bundle of drafts itself), it reveals his anxiety about revisiting the early iterations of his work. ‘I can hardly say that this’, he writes to his friend, ‘is the embryo Nightfishing. However let us say, Norman, it is the ghost of an ancestor embryo of the NF. Or an early “Eine Kleine Nacht Fishin”’. He observes how, poring ‘over these excerpts now, when the present NF has been settling in for about 6 years, it gives me quite a shock to find just how unfirm and “cloudy” the texture of the verse is’. The opening of the draft, in particular, is marked out as being especially uncanny: its ‘first section is almost like another poem when I read it now. Not a very good one’.1
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".