Vomito, Ergo Deconstruo (I Vomit, Therefore I Deconstruct): A Practical Analysis of Deconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vomit: a digestive malfunction, or a deconstructive metaphor? Through close-reading of a meal gone awry, I set out to prove that Derrida and vomit are indeed compatible, and may even share the same objectives of demonstrating the shortcomings of Western rationalism that expects and anticipates only perfection. The first stage of getting ready involves the méconnaisance (misrecognition) of Lacan's mirror stage: the immaculate self catches a glance of the neat and perfect self in the mirror, and mistakes the snapshot of the flawless Ideal-I as his/her real self. This Ideal-I quickly destabilizes, however, when he/she crumbles into the ground in the middle of the meal, as the meal proceeds not to pleasantries, but projectile. The "impeccable" self disappears as it hurls on the floor, creating a problem that nobody wants to see. This is what Julia Kristeva labels a "narcissistic crisis," where boundaries and perception of the self are obscured by the body's production of the abject matters, deconstructing the seemingly neat and definite boundaries of self and other. The essay concludes by deconstructing the meal/vomit binary, by showing the symbiotic relationship between the two that cannot exist without the other by applying the Derridian of différance and freeplay.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".