MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203294675 · doi:10.3138/cras.2015.s12

Don DeLillo’s Anagogic Postcards: Thematic Inscriptions Writ Small

2015· article· en· W2203294675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bradley D. Clissold

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityInscribed figureSocial mediaThematic analysisMedia studiesSociologyMass mediaSpectacleTourismHistoryLiteratureAestheticsArtLawPolitical scienceAnthropologyQualitative researchPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article critically explores Don DeLillo’s strategic use of postcards to highlight and reinforce the central thematic preoccupations in his fiction. As early-twentieth-century communication technologies, postcards precariously navigated the uneasy boundaries between public and private concerns, establishing cultural protocols about the proper use of these modern epistolary forms. Commonly associated as they are with tourism and American kitsch culture, postcards have become productive sites for exploring contemporary anxieties about interpersonal relationships and subjectivity. They are mass-produced objects containing standardized formats that are then inscribed with individualized (and therefore highly subjective) messages. Although the postcard has been superseded as a communication technology by a number of more cost- and time-efficient modes of communication (e-mailing, texting, tweeting, and using other social media devices), postcard use has not been abandoned (think cheap postal advertising and anthrax scares), and DeLillo’s fiction—from Great Jones Street and Amazons to White Noise, Libra, The Day Room, and The Names—confirms the postcard’s literary longevity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207