Typographic foregrounding in contemporary English poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research focuses on the linguistic features of typographic foregrounding in contemporary English poetry as a means of manipulative influence on the reader. The paper examines the specifics of this phenomenon, its varieties, historical origins, and current manifestations, in particular in the work of a Canadian poet Bill Bissett and amateur examples of contemporary visual poetry, the Instapoetry of Rupi Kaur in particular. Special attention is paid to the psychological aspect of the influence of typography – font size, spacing, text placement – on the reader’s perception. We hypothesise that typographic foregrounding in combination with emotionally charged vocabulary enhances the manipulative effect of a poetic work is confirmed. The results of the study can be useful for literary critics, poets, teachers and students, interested in contemporary poetry and its intermedia forms. The study also emphasises the importance of digital space in the dissemination of visual poetry and opens up prospects for further research in this area
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".