Bibliographic record
Abstract
In "Telepresence and the Posthuman," Norm Friesen sets out to chasten posthumanist enthusiasm about telepresence.He presents a critical consideration of various forms and aspects of telecommunication and their collective inability to fulfill the conditions required for "pedagogical tact."The article cleverly inverts the core of "representability" from presence to absence in relation to the distance of the tele.This inversion provides the basis for his central claim that the immediacy of technologies of telepresence constitute a withdrawal that, as Friesen puts it, "rob us" of the qualities that "constitute our very 'being' as educators" and even as humans. FIVE MOMENTS OF MODERATIONOne might hear Friesen's critique in concert with critics of modern technology such as Shelley, Heidegger, Illich, and Elull.However, unlike the more radical critiques, Friesen's criticism is blunted by five moments of moderation.The first is when he grants the posthumanist assertion that technologies of telepresence "are changing what it means to be human."The second, third, and fourth are when he grants the posthuman "prosthetic" description of the body and consciousness and then, "for the sake of argument," goes further to admit that "technological innovation may someday be able to overcome much of this [prosthetic] 'trouble'," followed by the warning that with increased innovation the trouble of prosthetics could increase.The fifth "moment" of moderation are the collective and recurring points where Friesen's argument relies on the counterfactuals of "empirical research."These five points of moderation reveal that Friesen, unlike more forceful critics we might think of, grants out of hand a number of posthumanist assumptions about the present and the future and, furthermore, that his argument is essentially confined to
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".