MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126924250 · doi:10.1017/9789048517954.019

Interview with José van Dijck and Robert Zwijnenberg

2013· other· en· W3126924250 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Tools and Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Instead of carrying a photograph of his wife Patricia in his wallet, the Canadian neurophilosopher Paul Churchland has a scan of her brain. As passionate advocates of eliminative materialism, the couple view psychological phenomena such as belief, hope and love as constructions of the imagination. It is their contention that, in essence, the brain comprises merely the interaction between the neurons contained therein. Believing in a human mind is the same as believing that the earth is flat. The irony is that this act of holding on to a scan, intended to tease romantics, can also be viewed as an ultra-romantic expression of love. At least that is the opinion of José van Dijck and Robert Zwijnenberg. “Churchland says that the brain scan shows more of his wife than a photograph. In this way he romanticizes the brain scan …”, says Zwijnenberg. Van Dijck responds: “Which, of course, reminds me of Thomas Mann.” Zwijnenberg: “Yes! The Magic Mountain .” Van Dijck: “The passage in which TB patient Hans Castorp inspects the X-ray of his fellow patient, with whom he is in love. This image transports him to a pink cloud of love because he can see inside her. He keeps the X-ray for years in his wallet. Churchland's story is exactly the same.” Zwijnenberg: “I’m impressed with how Mann is able to eroticize an X-ray. For Castorp it is an erotic experience to see inside his beloved's ribcage. The image is not only a medical or technological product but also functions as an essential aspect of an emotional relationship between two people. In this way Mann gives the X-ray a place in the cultural context of human relations.” This exchange between Van Dijck and Zwijnenberg is typical of the manner in which they engage in the debate with other academic disciplines. Van Dijck, professor of media studies and dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Amsterdam, and Zwijnenberg, professor of art history at Leiden University, are both in favour of a more offensive, self-assured stance for academics in the humanities, who they believe have withdrawn too far into their own circles and have left the public debate about the big social issues to prominent representatives of the natural and social sciences. It is their belief that this debate will be enriched if humanities academics distance themselves less from everyday reality.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Tools and MethodsFrench-language works237,207