Surrealist Presencing in Theophile Gautier’s ‘The Mummy’s Foot’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to pursue a Surrealist approach to Existential presencing as projected in Theophile Gautier’s ‘The Mummy’s Foot’. The existentialist individual is thrown into an absurd nonsensical world, and is only capable of giving meaning to his existence by distancing himself from society and proving his presence through subjective continuous action, or else risks his reduction to nonexistence. Likewise, the Surrealist aim is to escape the rational limitations of society hindering the individual’s ability to project his full imaginative potential. The only possible way for a Surrealist to truly experience and project his creativity and place in the world is through one’s sub-conscious, only possibly accessed in the dream world, which otherwise is never fully attainable in the waking-state. The paper attempts to offer a fresh perspective as it explores the possibility of tracing existential presencing by utilizing the Surrealist method of dream interpretation in literature. The conjoining of the waking-state and the dream world grants access to the possibility of proving one’s existence in either state, so long as subjective action is affected and continued in both realities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".