MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4239337235 · doi:10.5621/sciefictstud.46.1.0193

[sans titre]

2019· article· W4239337235 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueScience Fiction Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDigital Games and Media
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMonsterArt historyAKAHoaxHistoryMedia studiesSociologyArtLiteratureLibrary science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

193 BOOKS IN REVIEW authorial, editorial, and thematic progression might suggest. Advanced students who already know a basic history of sf will find what this book offers enlightening while uninitiated students might find it staggering. In addition to these pedagogical uses, it should be carried in libraries as an illuminating history of literary sf and a potent research tool.—Jason W. Ellis, New York City College of Technology, CUNY The Monster and the Maple Leaf. Mark A. McCutcheon. The Medium Is the Monster: Canadian Adaptations of FRANKENSTEIN and the Discourse of Technology. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca UP, 2018. xi+234. CAD$29.99 pbk. Canadian adaptations of Frankenstein? I confess that before beginning McCutcheon’s study, I could not think of a single example. Was this going to be an extremely parochial study of some obscure plays and films making much of polar landscapes? By the time I had finished the book, however, it was clear that the material covered is very much of general, international interest and particularly so to readers of science fiction. McCutcheon deals interestingly and intelligently with such Canadian (or adoptive or expatriate Canadian) figures as David Cronenberg, William Gibson, Margaret Atwood, Phyllis Gotlieb, James Cameron, and Peter Watts, as well as with the Canadian adaptation theorist Linda Hutcheon, the Canadian electronic music producer Joel Thomas Zimmerman (aka Deadmau5), and even with the Canadian oil extraction megaproject known as the Alberta Tar Sands. The media theories of the late Marshall McLuhan of the University of Toronto tie everything together. McCutcheon’s thesis is not easy to summarize briefly, but it goes something like this. One of McLuhan’s achievements was to advance the understanding that media and technology were inseparable, even “synonymous” (91). In spite of his neutral stance in public, McLuhan was a technophobe who, as early as The Mechanical Bride (1951), associated the media/technology nexus with Frankenstein’s Monster as animated by Mary Shelley, namely, with a creature that would quickly escape the control of its creator and threaten to destroy him. So influential have been McLuhan’s ideas on Canadian popular culture that the theme of technology run amuck has become central. And contemporary Canadian popular culture, as represented in particular by the sf or sf-inflected works of the artists mentioned above, has helped spread this Frankensteinian association around the globe. McCutcheon’s first chapter deals with definitions and theories of technology, noting the three main premises, often unspoken, associated with the term: instrumentalist (tech as a set of value-neutral tools), determinist (tech as a toolset operating according to its own logic), and substantivist (tech as anti-human monster). It then looks at the way that Canadian identity is a product of “technological nationalism,” namely, one rooted not in individual cultural practice but in technological/media resistance to dominant American “media imperialism” (24-25). His second chapter is an attempt to redefine “adaptations” by broadening the term and refocusing it. That is to say, for McCutcheon “adaptations” of Frankenstein embrace not only extensive works that frankly admit to being reformulations of previously existing ones (e.g., 194 SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES, VOLUME 46 (2019) James Whale’s 1931 film of Mary Shelley’s novel), but also lesser, though often more intensive traces within works. It is exclusively these traces that he pursues in his study. In so doing he borrows the neologism “Frankenpheme” from Timothy Morton and uses it to identify “allusions, quotations, piecemeal or fragmentary adaptations, and other miscellaneous ephemera that abound in popular culture” (38-39). Chapter 3 deals with Shelley’s novel, arguing that it reinvented technology in the modern sense of the word or, to put it more precisely, that it was “a textual battery that charged the epistème of Romantic science and culture to generate the modern discourse of technology” (59-60). Chapter 4 turns to Marshall McLuhan and argues that his writings, beginning with The Mechanical Bride and consistently if not always overtly thereafter, highlight the “Frankenpheme of Technology” (85). McCutcheon provides good evidence that though McLuhan sometimes came across as an “‘anti-book’ technofetishist ” (92), he actually had a “deep but disavowed hostility to technological change,” seeing new technologies as generating “pain, confusion and...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,364
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,020
Communication savante0,0020,010
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,317 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle