MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998846440 · doi:10.1080/13576270701430692

The rights of the corpse

2007· article· en· W1998846440 on OpenAlexaff
John Baglow

Bibliographic record

VenueMortality · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Value (mathematics)SociologyHuman rightsEpistemologyLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of the rights of the corpse can provoke incredulous reaction, seeming as it does to denigrate the concept of rights and to assign an ontological status to the corpse that defies reason. On the contrary, however, it can be demonstrated that the social corpse is constructed as a repository of meaning and value: that it remains human and, in a social sense, animate. Rights, deriving from obligations, are shown to inhere in the corpse as a result of the duties that we continue to acknowledge to it.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.033
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMortalitySame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207