MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942777375 · doi:10.3138/cras.2018.016

Mourning in the Age of Terror: Revisiting Don DeLillo’s Elusive 9/11 Novel <i>Falling Man</i>

2019· article· en· W2942777375 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamza Karam Ally

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld trade centerFalling (accident)TerrorismHistoryLiteraturePsychoanalysisArt historyArtPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article revisits Don DeLillo’s 2007 novel Falling Man—generally considered a minor work in the author’s oeuvre—in the wider contexts of the American novel after 11 September, contemporary discourses around terrorism, the “War on Terror,” and recent currents of global ethnonationalism. It is organized around an iconic photograph in modern American history, one of an anonymous man falling from the North Tower of the World Trade Center shortly before its collapse, as well as around DeLillo’s difficult novel named after this same photo. These works are primarily interpreted herein through Emmanuel Levinas’s analysis of images as symbolic substitutions and Sigmund Freud’s “Mourning and Melancholia,” which I use to ask critical questions about Falling Man’s expression of the societal shock represented by 9/11 and of private and public mourning in response to terrorism, as well as about what it means to be unable to mourn altogether.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.042
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207