Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIn 1953, Life magazine sent its world-renowned photojournalist MargaretBourke-White into the mountains of Mesoamerica, where her drive to takepictures collided with a poor man’s desire not to be photographed. Examiningthis destitute man’s assertion of his right to be let alone, I argue that recenttheorizations of “the civil contract of photography” and “the right to look”need to be tempered with what is at once a more old fashioned defense of theright to privacy and an utterly pressing contemporary concern with electronicintrusions into our lives by governments and businesses.Keywords: ethics of photography, the right to privacy, the right not tobe photographed, the civil contract of photographyResumenEn 1953, la revista Life envió a su periodista y fotógrafa mundialmentereconocida, Margaret Bourke-White, a las montañas de Mesoamérica,en donde su compulsión a tomar fotografías tropezó con el deseo de unhombre humilde de no ser fotografiado. Examinando la determinación deaquel hombre que reclamó para sí el derecho a ser dejado al margen de lacámara, sostengo que las recientes teorizaciones acerca del “contrato civilde la fotografía” y del “derecho a mirar” necesitan ser moderadas con loque constituye a la vez la tradicional defensa del derecho a la privacidad yla apremiante preocupación contemporánea por la invasión electrónica degobiernos y negocios en nuestras vidas.Palabras clave: dimensión ética del acto fotográfico, el derecho a laprivacidad, el derecho a no ser fotografiado, el contrato civil de la fotografía
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".