Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation offers the first comprehensive examination of the diverse inte-ractions and collaborations among Canadian modernist poets and artists, as well as the aesthetic, thematic, and idiomatic relationships between their poems and works of art. The project incorporates archival and historical research to demon-strate the interartistic nature of modernist poetry in Canada between 1930 and 1960. By establishing that paintings, sculptures, and book designs and illustrations by Canadian artists who knew and worked closely with Canadian modernist poets informed and affirmed the content and aesthetics of the poetry, the dissertation argues for a consideration of the social dimension of literary modernism in Cana-da. Chapter One investigates the personal relationship between the poet Dorothy Livesay and the artist Emily Carr and reveals the aesthetic and thematic conver-gences of their paintings and poems as they relate to landscape and affect. Chapter Two deals with the Montreal little magazines of the 1940s as interartistic sites of collaboration among artists and poets and argues that the artists' paintings provided models of human agency for the poets. Chapter Three considers the small press movement and gallery space of the 1950s as similar sites of interartistic collaboration and contact; it suggests that this contact inspired Canadian modernist poets to translate the aesthetic and thematic tensions of Canadian art into their poems. Chapter Four concerns both the poetry and visual art of P.K. Page-Irwin and argues that the poet addressed an ongoing aesthetic conflict in her poetry through the visual arts. Where the first chapter examines the relationship between a single poet and a single artist, the second and third chapters analyze the dynamics of groups of artists and poets working closely together on little magazines and on small press publications and encountering each others' work within the space of a gallery. The final chapter considers the work of a poet who is also a visual artist. This framework reveals the diversity of interartistic relationships that flourished throughout the rise of modernism in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".