The Chimera of Liberal Individualism: How Cells Became Selves in Human Clinical Genetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Ian Hacking's notion of "making up people", this paper argues that human chimeras--people who contain more than one genetically distinct cell population--have been made up. As with multiple personality, the discourse surrounding the phenomenon of chimerism offers a novel vantage point for examining the socio-political processes of subject formation. Evidence from archives, interviews with cell scientists, and popular sources will show that, in a strange leap that has come to seem self-evident, journalists, laypeople, and even scientists have come to equate genomes with selves and hence conclude that chimeras are more than one person. Thus far, the challenge that chimeras pose to the simple alignment of genome-body-person has been limited both by relegating chimeras to freak show status and by liberal institutions' demands that individuals be singular.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".