Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do writers portray the absence of one or more of our senses? In\nparticular, how do they convey the absence of hearing? The question arises\nfor me because I was born deaf. While I have the occasional complex or\nawkward experience because the world is designed by the hearing for the\nhearing, I have never experienced the sensation of my other-hearingness as\na grief or a loss. Instead, I experience my deafness as another sensory\nperception: different from the hearing person, but a sense all the same.\n\nIn this essay, I take up the challenge of examining the portrayal of\ndeafness in contemporary fiction by comparing Vikram Seth’s novel, An\nEqual Music, in which the heroine, Julia, is a deaf concert pianist, with\nFrances Itani’s novel, Deafening, a fictionalized account of a Canadian\ndeaf woman, Grania. I show how, in Seth’s novel, the reader witnesses the\nimpact of hearing loss on Julia through the observations and experiences\nof Michael, her former lover and fellow musician. In Itani’s novel, I show\nhow the reader is vicariously immersed in the experience of deafness\nthrough the cumulative impact of the omnipotent (and apparently hearing)\nnarrator’s reports of the reactions of the other characters to Grania’s\ndeafness, together with Grania’s interior monologue in which she reports\nher own observations of hearing people’s reactions to her deafness. Of\ncourse, while some of my observations inevitably draw on my particular\ninsights as a deaf reader, this does not mean my observations are\nrepresentative of all deaf people (just as one hearing reader is not\nrepresentative of all hearing people).
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it