Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tongues and Interpretation is a poetry manuscript that explores the effects of growing up in a religious household where one is left to navigate the aftermath of conservative, dualistic thinking on one's experience with the environment, gender, and culture. This collection focuses intensely on the material world while also skirting along the edge of scripture and myth, engaging with sacred stories not to discount them, but to digest them with levity, grief, and reverence. It examines the images and memories of a childhood where moose hearts floated in Tupperware and rabbits hung, skinned, in the basement; where children spent Sundays in ancient texts that brimmed with violence and devotion and weekdays deep in turr feathers and cod guts. The collection engages with ideas of creation and decreation, rewilding the body, and unsettling religious text — listening to and speaking with the tongues of feminism, hunting, Sunday dinners, plastic pollution, evangelicalism, body politics, and Newfoundland folklore. Tongues and Interpretation explores the grotesque and the beautiful, making a case for the reverence needed amid revulsion and blurring the line between the sacred and profane in a bid to call humans into a better relationship with all animate/inanimate objects and human/nonhuman beings of the world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.011 |
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".