When the Artificial Is Natural: Reconsidering What Bionics and Sensoria Do
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When the artificial is natural: reconsidering what bionics and sensoria do. Videos of cochlear implant (CI) activation are common on online platforms such as YouTube, presenting activation as a “magical” moment when people receive “the gift of hearing.” We argue that these videos present a distorted understanding of what bionic devices, specifically CIs, do. Our research focuses on the scientific understandings of what the implants do within a user's sensorium and, consequently, what people do with CIs. The case of CIs calls us to analyze and subvert notions of sensory deficits and the bionic devices that are thought to repair them. In doing so, we delve into the forms of embodiment and processes associated with “hearing,” in its multiple forms. We examine the categories of artificial and natural, and how they relate to researchers' and clinicians' conceptualizations of the sensoria of people with CIs. This approach turns attention back to the people living with CIs themselves and is positioned antithetically to the “inspiration porn” of viral CI activation videos, compelling us to consider how people who use CIs create and inhabit new 'natures' with the devices. Quand l'artificiel est naturel: repenser la relation entre appareils “bioniques” et sensorium. Les vidéos d'activation d'implants cochléaires (ICs) sont devenus du contenu courant, voire viral, sur des plateformes en ligne comme YouTube. L'activation y est très souvent présentée comme un moment « magique », qui permet à la personne de recevoir l'audition comme un « don ». Mais dans quelle mesure cette représentation correspond‐elle vraiment aux expériences présentées dans, et au‐delà de ces vidéos ? Cet article explore ce que font les ICs, en tant qu'appareils « bioniques » une fois intégrés dans le sensorium d'une personne et, conséquemment, quelle part prennent les personnes utilisant des ICs à ce processus. À travers ces questionnements, nous proposons d'analyser et subvertir les notions de déficit sensoriel et l'idée selon laquelle des appareils bioniques seraient capables de les réparer. En se tournant vers les formes d'incorporation (embodiment) et les processus associés à l’ « audition » dans ses formes multiples, nous examinons comment les notions d'artificiel et de naturel induisent une conceptualisation spécifique et réductrice du sensorium. Cette approche vise à valoriser l'expérience des personnes vivant avec des ICs et se positionne ainsi en opposition à l’ « inspiration porn » sous‐jacente aux vidéos virales d'activation d'ICs. Notre objectif est de considérer comment la diversité des expériences des personnes vivant avec des ICs renseigne les 'natures' multiples de l'audition, et plus spécifiquement celles produites au sein d'assemblages qui comprennent des appareils technologiques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".