MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W309665691

The Fiction of Privacy: Fantasy and the Past

2009· article· en· W309665691 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Gavriel Kay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the fantastic in the arts · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStupiditySuspectHonorWonderLiteratureArgument (complex analysis)VerisimilitudeConfession (law)HistoryPhilosophyArtArt historyPsychologyComputer scienceEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a pleasure to be here. But I confess that there seems to have been a misapprehension, and I further confess it seems to be mine. I was under impression from conversations last year in this same venue at this same time that my defined role as one of your guests of honor was to amuse and entertain Farah Mendlesohn and Christine Mains in any way I could and using all means necessary. I admit that Farah and I were not entirely and utterly sober when this was discussed. Accordingly, I rounded up usual suspect jokes and trimmed my beard. Instead, I discovered, alarmingly late in day, that I was to make a speech and, furthermore, that my remarks were expected to be lucid and judicious, to develop a thesis, shape an argument, perplex, and provoke. Oy. Fortunately, as a good Canadian, I am almost always ready to provoke, and I do have a thesis to share with you today. But before I approach my text, I wonder if you'll indulge a small digression. Given rites of spring, well, spring training here in Florida, it seems apt to begin by citing celebrated linguistic philosopher and Hall of Fame catcher Lawrence Peter Berra, more familiarly known by his nom de plume, Yogi. It was Yogi Berra who said to a graduating class he was addressing, If you come to a fork in road, take it. While we parse gnomic, oracular depths of this, let me remind you that it was also Yogi who further reported, speaking of baseball, that of this game is half As a novelist, I feel much same way much of time. Forks in narrative road, and feeling half mental. On other hand, I'll confess that I've just been guilty of a classic unreliable narrator device: those two initial quotes aren't digressions. Indeed, I hope they might be kept in mind throughout these remarks. Here's why. I'm going to contend that our culture as a whole, and our writers of fiction, including many of most deservedly honored in this country and elsewhere, have indeed taken a fork in road, without even adverting to fact. I'm going to argue that there are significant ethical issues emerging from that, and that they have 90% or perhaps half to do with our culture's attitude to privacy and autonomy of a lived life. I'm then going to perform poised arabesques and linguistic flourishes before your astonished eyes and connect this to a defense of fantasy literature as a way of addressing history and avoiding these ethical concerns. Stand by. Is privacy something with ethical value attached to it? Enormous elements of cultural conditioning underlie this question, and so we should at least pause to acknowledge complex history of private life, way in which very idea of a space to be alone, unobserved, has been alien to many cultures, and is still today a dream or an illusion for many. But perhaps fact that it is a dream is revealing. A room of one's own. In Jewish rabbinical law, notion of protection from the unwanted was enshrined to such a degree that not only was it prohibited to look from one's window into home of another, it was prohibited to build a window where someone might fear they could be overlooked in private space. The anxiety that one might be seen was judged worth assuaging by that society. Think about this, if you will. In translation, core passage reads as follows, Even smallest intrusion into private space by unwanted gaze causes damage, because injury caused by seeing cannot be measured. Significantly, this was not a breach that required aggrieved individual's protest and could not even be permitted by that individual. In other words, intrusion upon privacy was an offense against society, how it defined itself. There are dissenting views. So let me bring into picture remarks of Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, who said, You have zero privacy anyway. …

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.078
Scholarly communication0.0190.022
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the fantastic in the artsSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207