MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reflecting on the ongoing aftermath of heart transplantation: Jean‐Luc Nancy's <i>L’intrus</i>

2009· article· en· W1967839812 on OpenAlexaff
Francine Wynn

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationDilemmaPsychoanalysisHumanismMeaning (existential)AestheticsSociologyEpistemologyPsychologyMedicinePhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores Jean-Luc Nancy's philosophical reflection on surviving his own heart transplant. In 'The Intruder', he raises central questions concerning the relations between what he refers to as a 'proper' life, that is, a life that is thought to be one's own singular 'lived experience', and medical techniques, shaped at this particular historical juncture by cyclosporine or immuno-suppression. He describes the temporal nature of an ever-increasing sense of strangeness and fragmentation which accompanies his heart transplant. In doing so, Nancy opens up the concealed of transplantation in terms of the problematic 'gift' of a 'foreign' organ, the unremitting suffering intrusiveness of the treatment regimen, and the living of life as 'bare life'. He uncovers and exposes the relentless uncanniness that pervades the post-transplant experience, which for him is an example of our humanistic, never-ending impulse, to alter ourselves. Nevertheless, Nancy offers no answer to this dilemma, but instead calls us to think about the meaning or 'sense' of the prolonging of life and deferring of death, which currently drives our medical interventions.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0070.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing InquirySame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207