Intersubjectivity and the `Revival of Death': Toward a Critique of Sovereign Individualism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the essay is to provide an introductory analysis of the potentially negative effects of religious or spiritual narratives invoked or encouraged when death is near. Drawing on the work of Jürgen Habermas and Jessica Benjamin, I argue that the encouragement of the unchecked expression of feelings coupled with the view that all individuals are sacred and have a sacred story promotes a potentially inhibited and inhibiting thanatological discourse. Instead of encouraging the inclusion of “spirituality” as a preferential discourse for dealing with death, dying, and bereavement, it is argued here that such encouragement may inadvertently have a disabling effect for those immediately involved in the process of dying (family and professional health care workers) and, at the same time, contribute to a social mystification or spiritualized understanding of death.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.151 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".