The “Permeable I”/Eye: Hybrid Subjectivities in <i>True Blood</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans True Blood, d’Alan Ball, la narration polyphonique contribue au processus d’intégration des vampires et autres espèces surnaturelles en présentant leur point de vue. Certes, la frontière entre l’humain et le non-humain est déjà brouillée par les échanges sanguins entre les personnages, mais c’est avant tout à travers l’hybridation des points de vue qu’apparaît cette perméabilité entre les espèces. L’auteure cherche à démontrer que l’utilisation du point du vue dans True Blood révèle la recherche d’un idéal posthumain, tout en présentant cet idéal comme illusoire en soulignant les limites de l’idéologie post-raciale. Même si l’accent est porté sur la porosité des visions subjectives qui s’entremêlent, l’emploi de multiples points de vue suppose également un rejet de toute approche unique et englobante. Ainsi s’exprime un désir d’exposer toute la complexité de la perception de l’individu en surimposant plusieurs prismes à la fois afin de mieux souligner la dimension intersectionnelle du vécu de chacun.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".