Transgressing Boundaries in the Nine Inch Nails: The Grotesque as a Means to the Sacred
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The grotesque is often viewed as a subversive element injected into the fabric of social and religious structures for subversive and offensive purposes intended to garner increased market share and media exposure. As such it has been seen as barbaric or even demonic. However, other theories of the grotesque show that it is often a combination of social and aesthetic criticism that disrupts the ordered structure of experience in terms of boundaries and categories that compose that structure often in terms of explicit traditions, but also in terms of hidden assumptions and values that compose this structure. To this end, there is a connection of the grotesque to the sublime and the ambiguous. There is thus an element of the grotesque that lays claim to mystery and so, can act as a vehicle for understanding crucial concepts in studying divinity. Examples of religious ambiguity and the grotesque in popular culture disclose both aspects of the grotesque and also offer a fructuous medium from which the critical engagement of tradition, boundaries, and the grotesque itself can emerge. The grotesque aesthetic and explicitly religious quoting of the Nine Inch Nails provides a clear medium through which the tentative structure of boundaries is expressed creating creative space for the mystery of the sacred to emerge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".