Bibliographic record
Abstract
Michael Lundblad (2009) has recently called for an “animality studies” reading of Jack London’s The Call of the Wild (1903), contending that this approach to this well-known text would reveal “a more complex, unsettled and inconsistent engagement with the question of the animal and constructions of the human than we might otherwise assume” (p. 498). Echoing the politics of stereotype endured by Black Beauty and other equines, London’s sled dogs are burdened with not only Western civilization’s assumptions about their species, but also our assumptions about wolves as the embodiment of both wildness and wilderness, which London himself was essential in establishing. While Lundblad’s examination focuses on the relationship of animality and sexuality in particular, it nevertheless correctly identifies a general oversight in critical analyses of London’s canine canon. These works include The Call of the Wild, “Bâtard” (1904), White Fang (1905), and his often-overlooked nonfiction ode to sled dogs, “Husky — The Wolf Dog of the North” (1900). This analysis, however, can be expanded to include filmic adaptations of London’s writing, including both those that adhere closely to the source text and those which omit the main human characters and the plot, to borrow only the setting and the dog.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".