Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shows how the concept of 'brain death' was created in order that the routinization of solid organ transplantation could take place. The concept permitted individuals diagnosed as brain-dead but whose respiration and heartbeat continued through technological assistance to be counted as no longer alive, and therefore organs could be retrieved from them without legal reprisals. It is shown how, because the condition of brain-dead bodies is ambiguous--they are at once dead and alive--discursive practices must be put to work in both medicine and law to justify their status as dead. Despite an apparent consensus within the medical world about the concept of brain death, disagreement remains among various countries about how best to make the diagnosis. Moreover, professionals working with brain-dead patients draw on a Cartesian split between mind and body in order to allow themselves to count such patients as dead; this maneuver is justified because the minds of brain-dead patients no longer function, although their bodies clearly remain very much alive. Without the legal fiction of brain death the transplant world would be severely hampered.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".