Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article charts the importance of Berlin in the constellation of Bowie’s success and probes what stardom means in the context of Berlin. It links what Berlin meant to Bowie with what Bowie’s connection to the city has meant to Berlin in its establishing itself as the ‘poor but sexy’ clubbing capital of Europe. In order to get at the stylistic implications of this form of stardom, I bring together Bowie’s Berlin experiences with those of two countercultural personalities the city brought him together with, who are black stars in their own right: Christiane Felscherinow and Hedi Slimane. In ascertaining that Felscherinow and Slimane share with Bowie a dark aesthetic, which is also a politics and ethics of time and space, I probe the German Romantic lineage of the concepts of constellation and elective affinity and their critical potential via the writings of Berlin-born Walter Benjamin to show that this aesthetic is characteristic of the kind of stardom that the city of Berlin is struggling to maintain in the face of gentrifying pressures. Its appeal, I conclude, lies in the potential it offers for a lifestyle counter to the hegemonic, heteronormative, nuclear-family one of bourgeois modernity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".