MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526059618

This Is Not a Character: Resemblance and Similitude in Etgar Keret's Suddenly, a Knock on the Door

2013· article· en· W1526059618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nurit Buchweitz

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)DepictionPostmodernismReading (process)PhilosophySkepticismSimilitudeLiteratureAestheticsEpistemologySociologyArtLinguisticsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is concerned with reading Etgar Keret’s Suddenly a Knock on the Door (2010) for the character. Shot through with postmodern skepticism about the concept of character, Keret’s stories are particularly well placed to net the contemporary sense of rupture between character and the affirmation of reality. Keret’s depiction of character is analyzed using Michel Foucault’s distinction between Resemblance and Similitude, introduced in his book This Is Not a Pipe. Building on Foucault’s distinction, I argue that Keret dismisses the old equivalence between resemblance and affirmation and brings pure similitudes and non-affirmative verbal statements into play, thereby creating the instability of character and a disoriented characterization. This principle manifests itself in a variety of techniques, in all of which the verbal objects, that are there seemingly representing character, even though they bear a resemblance to what we think is recognizable, are in fact misleading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.027
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207