MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966298468 · doi:10.7202/1062068ar

“Like a Half-Crushed Worm”

2019· article· en· W2966298468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel G. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and Literary Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraiseDeath driveAbsurdityPhilosophyPsychoanalysisAnthropocentrismLiteratureArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper turns to Arizona-based band Nuclear Death (1985-2000) as a case of apophatic aesthetics in extreme metal. Amador Vega’s “apophatic aesthetics” offers a framework for theorizing formlessness as preamble to form’s emergence. Emergent forms of “love” and “justice” in Nuclear Death’s work are discussed in reference to Michele Toscan’s biographical sketch of the band. Invoking the concepts of affliction and negative capability, and their respective elaboration by philosopher-mystic Simone Weil and psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion, I argue Nuclear Death do not praise or curse God, but dwell in God’s absence, suffering a state of affliction that leaves the listener “struggling on the ground like a half-crushed worm.” Bion’s negative capability and Weil’s emphasis on self-annihilation are cast as ascending and descending views of desire, and together accent different aspects of Nuclear Death’s first two albums, Bride of Insect (1990) and Carrion for Worm (1991). Lastly, I suggest that Nuclear Death invite a tragicomic response to the absurdity of affliction, which contrasts with the solemnity found in Weil’s and Bion’s works.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicPhilosophy and Literary AnalysisFrench-language works237,207