MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807760114 · doi:10.1386/jepc.9.1.43_1

Entangled states: Putting affect theory into play with John Burnside’s A Summer of Drowning

2018· article· en· W2807760114 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie Ringer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of European Popular Culture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheatre and Performance Studies
Canadian institutionsBurman University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)MathematicsPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article reads John Burnside’s A Summer of Drowning (2011) as resistance to the progress narratives or ‘man-making tales’ (Haraway 2016) that threaten life in fiction and in reality. The choice in Burnside’s gothic narrative and in affect theory is not to drown or not to drown but how to engage with old habits of thought that drown us in recursivity. The Norwegian island Kvaløya/Sállir is both marked and obscured by troubling events in history and in fiction, though it is impossible to tell which is which. At 28, narrator Liv Rossdal reflects on the disturbing events of midnattsol when she was 18. In the temporal distortions, it is hard to know what actually happens, but Liv and her artist mother Angelika survive by cultivating different styles of noticing their entangled states and ecologies (Tsing 2015, Barad 2007). Noticing the ways that ‘real’ characters are entangled with fairytale characters like Narcissus and the huldra disrupts habits that centre anthropocentric points of view, that eclipse other ways of making history, and that commoditize certain types of desire. Liv and her mother resist the simplifications, linearizations, and commoditizations of man-making habits by cultivating ‘unnatural’ connections. What else can bodies do, besides drown in representational thought in these disturbing times?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of European Popular CultureSame topicTheatre and Performance StudiesFrench-language works237,207