MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279880029

How to Create Inhumanity: Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go

2014· article· en· W2279880029 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Kowalski

Bibliographic record

VenueVerso: An Undergraduate Journal of Literary Criticism · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndictmentBiopowerReading (process)RacismSociologyAestheticsPsychoanalysisArt historyArtPhilosophyLiteratureLawPoliticsPsychologyGender studiesPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is easy to read Kazuo Ishiguro’s chilling novel Never Let Me Go as an indictment of human cloning, but thankfully Andrea Kowalski does not do the easy reading. In “How To Create Inhumanity,” she argues inventively that Ishiguro’s celebrated novel, set in 1990s England, explores what Michel Foucault called “biopower,” namely the politicization of all life. Ishiguro’s clones are created to donate their organs until they die, and they don’t rebel against this fate despite the fact that they are intelligent and well-educated. Why? This is the central question asked by Never Let Me Go . Kowalski answers it by arguing that the workings of biopolitical racism – the stratification of people into masters and servants – are as subtle and inescapable in Ishiguro’s novel as they are in real life. Dr. Alice Brittan

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVerso: An Undergraduate Journal of Literary CriticismSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207