MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087620955 · doi:10.3368/ss.44.1.18

Posthuman Temporality: Mitchell's Ghostwritten

2015· article· en· W2087620955 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Harris, Jonathan M. Boulter

Bibliographic record

VenueSubStance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporalityPosthumanSubject (documents)SubjectivityPhilosophyRelation (database)EpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

����� ��� This paper reads David Mitchell’s figuration of the posthuman sub ject, specifically its curious temporality, in relation to Heidegger’s notion of Dasein as itself an instantiation of futurity. In Being and Time Heidegger offers a way of coming to understand the human as temporally fixed as both futural and as a site of an aporetic historicality: in other words Being comes to know itself as a repetition of a prior—if not an a priori—repetition: “Dasein is as it already was, and it is ‘what’ it already was”; “Dasein ‘is’ its past in the way of its own Being” (Being and Time 41). My aim here is to explore a series of questions: If Heidegger’s representation of the doubly-inflected temporality of the subject holds, does Mitchell’s figuration of posthuman subjectivity as a continuum of repeating partial objects not stand as a confirmation of an all-too-human (rather than posthuman) position? Mitchell’s posthuman subject—one I will figure, after Blanchot, as a “subjectivity without any subject” (30)—is a subjectivity always oriented to the futural or imminent possibility of radical disaster and thus stands, it seems, as an almost perfect figure of the Heideggerian human, rather than as some variety of discontinuous posthuman. (In this way, of course, a Heideggerian reading of Blanchot’s figure of the disastrous subject would seem to confer on it, Blanchot’s subject, a counterintuitively stable relation to futurity and thus something approaching a firm humanity). Or does Mitchell’s figuration of the subject suggest, in a radicalized manner, that Heidegger’s work, in its focus on the aporia of human temporality, contains a subterranean, perhaps disavowed, even spectral, acknowledgment that the very idea of human Being must acknowledge the ends of the human, as such? In this sense, a reading of Mitchell with Heidegger (rather than a reading of Mitchell through Heidegger) suggests that Heidegger’s model of subjectivity, as for instance articulated in “The Age of the World Picture,” in which the human “specifically takes up this position as one constituted by himself, intentionally maintains it as that taken up by himself, and secures it as the basis for a possible development of humanity” (219-20), must be called into question precisely as it fails to acknowledge a tempo

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)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubStanceSame topicSpace Science and Extraterrestrial LifeFrench-language works237,207