Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A generic hybrid of mystery and horror, Michael Slade’s Ghoul (1987) is a highly violent, often graphically disgusting novel, refusing to shy away from nauseating scenes or grotesque images. My article uses Ghoul to explore a major aesthetic paradox that numerous philosophers of art have grappled with – the paradox of horror, that is, why we enjoy horror fiction despite its manifest unpleasantness. The article uses Slade’s novel to demonstrate the weaknesses of several pre-existing theories, going on to argue against their totalizing approaches to the genre and aesthetics in favour of a particularist theory. The article then formulates a specific theory of the paradox of horror as it relates to Ghoul specifically, building on recent scholarship on disgust by Carolyn Korsmeyer and earlier work by Susan Feagin, Berys Gaut and others. In doing so it questions the aesthetic methodologies often applied to horror fiction and revisits discussion of the paradox of horror, examining the subject from a new, specific perspective centred around the aesthetic possibilities of disgust.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it