MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175629437

Resistance to the Discourse of Death in Nothing to Be Frightened of by Julian Barnes in the Light of Michel Foucault

2011· article· en· W3175629437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soudabe Gholami

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingResistance (ecology)NarrativeMichel foucaultLiteraturePower (physics)PhilosophyBiographyKey (lock)PsychoanalysisEpistemologySociologyAestheticsPsychologyArtLawPoliticsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research traces the Foucauldian notion of resistance in Julian Barnes’ Nothing to Be Frightened of . The paper is an in-depth analysis of resistance to the discourses of death and nothingness and this resistance is shown through three different levels; These levels are the discourse of literature, the title and the narrative. The narrative also shows resistance in three different forms as dismissing a God-ruled universe, bodily experiences and memories. Considering the book as either a fiction or a semi-autobiography, the analysis can manifest some interesting notions concerning the discourse of literature including the narrative and the title as a form of resistance to the discourse of death. Key words: Discourse of death; Nothing and discourse of nothingness; Discourse of literature; Power/knowledge; Resistance; Docile bodies

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.043
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLiterary Theory and Cultural HermeneuticsFrench-language works237,207