The reading modality of popular trauma talk from within the province of human practice: A phenomenological hermeneutic perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term trauma occurs on a regular and frequent basis in Canadian newspapers. Contemporary inquiries into the phenomenon of the popularity of the term “trauma” have argued that trauma has become: a term that has drifted beyond its etymological root, a technical concept mistakenly and haphazardly applied, a symbol, and a functional communication tool. Problematically, each advance relies on a secondary approach to language. Specifically, each misses the inseparable connection between language and experience. Differently, the phenomenological hermeneutic approach taken in this dissertation moves beyond the notion of the ‘proper’, by deliberately considering the diversity of popular trauma talk as meaningful and intelligible for social members in the everyday practice of reading (de Certeau, 1984). This inquiry focuses on the modality of reading: that is, how social members actively do a popular trauma reading by modifying and making use of what is written when they establish a relation to what is read from within a particular Worldly existence. This work shows that when the modality of a popular trauma reading is considered in light of the generic and anonymous Worldly existence in which the reading occurs, the full scope of popular trauma talk is an open possibility for an everyday reading experience. This research demonstrates the benefits of adopting a phenomenological hermeneutic approach for understanding how people ‘consume’ cultural content.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".