MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916592963

Frankenstein and Frankenstein in Baghdad : The Sovereign, Homo Sacer and Violence

2018· article· en· W2916592963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ola Abdalkafor

Bibliographic record

VenuePostcolonial text · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSovereigntyLiteratureBridging (networking)Human rightsReading (process)State of exceptionPhilosophyArtLawPolitical scienceLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper tries to demonstrate that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Ahmed Saadawi's Frankenstein in Baghdad can be interpreted depending on one of the prominent political theories of the twentieth century; that is, Giorgio Agamben’s reading of the Roman figure: homo sacer – the sacred man. Agamben’s thought has so far been applied in the fields of politics, law and human rights. As for the implications it offers to literature, they have been neglected and this reveals the gap this paper endeavours to start bridging through highlighting and comparing homo sacer figures in Frankenstein and Frankenstein in Baghdad in an attempt to illuminate future postcolonial literary and political readings of literature.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePostcolonial textSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207