Community at the extremes: The death metal underground as being-in-common
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
Abstract This article asks what the early death metal underground teaches us about the relations between community and aesthetics. After tracing the emergence of death metal as a genre, the article examines the accounts of musicians, artists and recording engineers collected in Jason Netherton’s Extremity Retained (2014). Drawing on contemporary theories of non-human agency, research in animal studies, and Continental philosophies of community, the article focuses on ‘brutality’ as a crucial marker of death metal’s political significance, arguing that this involved experiments with new ways of embodiment that outstrip humanist presuppositions about what a body can do. Then, the article examines how international tape trading networks allowed for the emergence of forms of ‘being-in-common’ that cannot be understood in merely human terms. Finally, the article argues that the death metal underground’s particular importance lies in its linking of more-than-human practices of community with a focus on death and negativity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.004 | 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