The Voice under the Lamp: An Interview with Michael Redhill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MR: The decision to put myself in the play was not so much a postmodern gesture as a blatant act of authority, which the audience was free to accept or reject, either, at their peril. By positing, as theatrically as possible, that the author was telling a true story, the play asks the audience to go along with it or to retreat to an ironic position. The former – accepting what you’re being told – has one moral conundrum attached to it, which the play explores: who has the right or ability to tell a story. The latter presents the audience with the dilemma of failing to feel enough ... That may be comfortable initially, but only in the first act. The second act makes that a costly choice, because the pain in the play after the intermission brings anyone who has been standing apart from the drama to question their own objectivity. So the positioning of the main character as a supposedly real person makes it very difficult for the audience to view the play from a comfortable place. Had the narrator been just a writer (and not the author telling you that what you’re seeing is true), the audience would have imposed a moral objective on the play (ah, they would have said, we know who this ‘writer’ is, and he’s going to teach us a lesson). By having this fairly unlikeable first-person narrator in front of them (unlikeable in that he’s not trying to prove he’s some kind of moral model) the audience is stripped of their ability to see the narration as having a moral imperative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".