Bibliographic record
Abstract
For much of human history death has been mysterious, inevitable, unpredictable, arbitrary, and chaotic.In very general terms, the social and cultural response to this lack of individual and social control over death in pre-modern times was the creation of discourses in which control of death was assigned to the divine or to fate and the necessity of accepting god's will or one's fate was emphasized.Bayatrizi argues that modern discourses of death, starting in the mid-seventeenth century, changed dramatically from pre-modern times and in this book she traces the evolution of modern discourses about death from around the year 1650 to the present.Bayatrizi's thesis is that modern discourses about death have evolved over the centuries since 1650 to give "order" to death.A variety of discourses-scientific, statistical and actuarial, medical, sociological, for example-redefine death as something that is predictable and to various degrees preventable or at least manageable.Bayatrizi argues that the discursive re-conceptualization of death since 1650 features four "watershed moments" in which the risk of death was redefined as both measurable and avoidable.These watershed moments include the reconceptualization of violent death, premature death, self-inflicted death, and undignified death.With regards to violent and premature death, Bayatrizi suggests that discourses about death shifted from a focus on other-worldly salvation following death to this-worldly peace, prosperity, and longevity before death.Scientific, medical, and social discourses re-defined violent and premature death as something to be prevented by the creation of a civil society through political and economic re-ordering.The state
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".