In un concerto di voci amiche. Studi di Letteratura italiana dell’Otto e Novecento in onore di Donato Valli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tique of the social construction of trauma that then enables her discussion of mourning and healing that departs from hegemonic definitions.It is the last chapter, Mourning, Transcendence and Re-enchanting the Flesh, that is perhaps most interesting and at the same time begs a more pointed critique of race, whiteness and embodiment.An explicit consideration of whiteness seems apt regarding Wittman's discussion of the photos of the torture of detainees by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib Prison.Throughout the book she articulates the conflation of violence, sexuality, women's bodies and land that underpin the cultural texts in her study.However, the final chapter that deals with contemporary texts would benefit from a more sustained treatment of the racialized, "killable" body (123), Ellison's body that is present only through absence (125), and further discussion of Italy as a European colonial power as a means of embellishing her commentary on the Abu Ghraib photos.The scholarship of Sherene Razack addressing the tortures at Abu Ghraib, and Sara Ahmed's work on embodiment and the politics of emotions, come to mind in this regard.That said, Wittman's analysis speaks volumes regarding understandings and responses to war and death generating social relations, past and present.Wittman's superb writing style, detailed descriptions and analysis keep a reader engaged in the depth and breadth of her study.It is a book to return to in appreciation of the nuances of her scholarship.Furthermore, this work should be of great interest to embodiment scholars due to its multifaceted interdisciplinary scope.Wittman's recourse to psychoanalysis, spatial analysis, and literary and cinematic theory is on one hand intellectually impressive, and on the other, suggests what many would agree is necessary for the kind of project she has undertaken: that is, the problem of addressing how material and discursive embodiment figure in hegemonic and subversive responses to alterity, abjection, alienation and the desire to mourn and heal from the violence that pervades our society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".