MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319565805 · doi:10.1386/public.25.50.19_1

A figure of ambivalent retreat: The case of Gisela Elsner

2014· article· en· W2319565805 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie Smith-Prei

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanPoliticsInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)CommunismSociologyAestheticsPleasureHistoryLawPsychologyArtLinguisticsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Retreat communicates power through refusal. By turning away or separating from, the subject in retreat engages in an act of negativity that demands a break with dominant modes of thinking and a redirecting of energies towards the messy, diffuse, or unpopular. In the post-1945 German context, such associations carry specific historical and cultural weight, as negation always also denotes a retreat from the legacies of fascism. This article examines the German author Gisela Elsner (1937-1992) as a case study of just such a retreat. As a figure, she enacted retreat through costuming, make-up, and her fierce commitment to the DKP, the German Communist Party, despite her location in West Germany. Her writing also retreats - from representation, from pleasure, from emotion and from interpretation. The article explores Elsner as a figure of retreat that complicates the positive coding of the term's identity-political possibilities.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.030
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublicSame topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207