MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886737531 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.2016-0012.r1

“Watch the Blood-Soaked Old General in Action”: Blochian Atheism, Exodus, and Utopia in <i>Doctor Who</i>

2018· article· en· W2886737531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Casey Aldridge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtheismPhilosophyChristianityTheismMarxist philosophyMaterialismNarrativeReligious studiesPolityMessianismTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reads the eighth series of modern Doctor Who alongside Ernst Bloch's Atheism in Christianity. Applying Bloch's motifs of utopianism, God on High, and God of Exodus, it suggests that Doctor Who—and, to a lesser degree, Torchwood: Children of the Earth—presents a narrative that is at once deeply formed by atheist materialism and Christian messianism. Through the character analysis of the Doctor as well as secondary and tertiary characters, this article posits that both the atheist–Christian theology of Bloch and recent turns in Doctor Who fundamentally require the dissolution of all polity and ethical dimensions within religion. Whereas most analyses of the Doctor as a Christ figure examine Doctor Who's third series, this article does so with a focus on the tendencies toward exodus and liberation present in the eighth series. In doing so, it aims to challenge the assumptions of previous studies that have placed Doctor Who's atheism in tension with its Christian imagery and to suggest Bloch's model as a more helpful tool for thinking about the Doctor as a deified protagonist with both atheist and Christian characteristics. This work seeks to consider atheism and theism as forces that can and do exist concurrently in science fiction and Marxist theory, taking shape in a terrain that is neither exclusively Christian nor exclusively atheist and which is made possible through the theoretical vehicles of deification and theodicy.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Empirical

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 Religion and Popular CultureSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207