“The Resurrection Days Are Over”: Resurrection from<i>Doctor Who</i>to<i>Torchwood</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the Doctor Who mythos, resurrection takes two opposing forms, one quasi-messianic and utopian, and one profoundly nihilistic and atheistic. Doctor Who presents opportunities of rebirth which provide a return to previous life or a continuation of existence, usually by way of the temporal or dimensional “erasing” of the fact of death. For the Doctor himself, resurrection by way of regeneration provides a discontinuous life, a resurrection which is neither continuation nor apotheosis. Resurrection in the spin-off series Torchwood, however, is seen to consistently fail, resulting in afterlives that are monstrous, fragile, and unnatural, involving fear and suffering on the part of those who experience not a return from or evasion of the finality of death, but instead experience a living death. For Captain Jack Harkness, resurrection is a strategy of eternal suffering, resulting not in apotheosis but in yearning for perpetually deferred death. In this article, I will suggest that the positivist narratives of Doctor Who propose a utopian existence in which wrongs, including death, can be reversed, thanks to the salvation capacities of the Doctor-Messiah. By contrast, Torchwood suggests a dystopian and nihilist existence in which not only is death inevitable, but salvation through a viable afterlife is impossible, indeed meaningless.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".