MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016608268 · doi:10.7771/1481-4374.1417

"Mad Laughter" in Federman's The Twofold Vibration

2009· article· en· W2016608268 on OpenAlexaff
Menachem Feuer

Bibliographic record

VenueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and Culture · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaughterComedyThe HolocaustTextualityLiteratureRepresentation (politics)AbsurdismDepictionSensibilityArtPsychoanalysisAestheticsArt historyPhilosophyHistoryPsychologyLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his article "'Mad Laughter' in Federman's The Twofold Vibration" Menachem Feuer discusses one of the central questions in the debate over post-Holocaust representation with regard to comedy and laughter. Several authors and filmmakers including Mel Brooks, Lina Wertmüller, Roberto Benigni, Michael Chabon, or Jonathan Safran Foer employ comedy in work. Although the books and films of these authors and filmmakers certainly test the limits of representation through the use of comedy in post-Holocaust art, the use of "mad laughter" in the work of Raymond Federman to represent the Holocaust stands out as the most important exploration of post-Holocaust comedy today. Feuer argues that Federman's text traverses the fine line between a self-referential text, which alludes only to itself and not to any extrinsic historical referent (such as the Holocaust) and a form of laughter that is intimately connected to the trauma of the Holocaust. Further, the novelty of Federman's textual forays is the simultaneous exaltation of the self-referential to the level of what Susan Sontag would call camp style and the rigorous awareness of historical trauma. Federman shows readers that "mad laughter" can preserve history and a self-referential sensibility which sees itself as textual and desires to recreate itself through (inter)textuality.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.022
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 venueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and CultureSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207