MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064426639 · doi:10.1177/0021989406062919

J.M. Coetzee’s <i>Life &amp; Times of Michael K</i> and the Thin Theory of the Good

2006· article· en· W2064426639 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Dragunoiu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Commonwealth Literature · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth African History and Culture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineOppressionCommunitarianismLiberalismComplicityAmbivalencePhilosophySociologyIndividualismAllianceAcknowledgementLaw and economicsLawTheologyPsychoanalysisPolitical sciencePsychologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As elsewhere in J.M. Coetzee’s fiction, Michael K’s body is a central repository of signification. His life-threatening thinness operates as a supple metaphor for the novel’s ambivalent relationship with liberal doctrine. As a marker of the staggering cost of K’s commitment to self-determination, it highlights the suffering that attends a liberal prioritization of freedom over welfare. Yet in spite of its unflinching acknowledgement of liberalism’s limitations, the novel anchors its deepest moral convictions in Kantian and Rawlsian liberal doctrine. Coetzee’s quarrel with communitarianism and qualified endorsement of liberal values are traced back to the complicity he sees between communitarian discourse and the theoretical underpinnings of apartheid. Life & Times of Michael K exposes the alliance between communitarian and consequentialist ethical principles, and reveals the ways in which these principles abet oppression and exploitation by prioritizing the maximization of good outcomes over the claims of freedom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Commonwealth LiteratureSame topicSouth African History and CultureFrench-language works237,207