Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is the culmination of my independent research into the phenomenon of "body hacking": DIY techno-body modification that typically involves the surgical embedding of electronic or computing devices into the body. Body hackers are operating largely within a transhumanist vision (body hacing to improve and/or transcend the self or the human condition) and outside of traditional medical institutions. My paper addresses conceptions of the hacked body, including the deliberate and physical transition into "cybrog" and the blurred line of "humanness" that comes from a surgical merge with technology. I focus on the perspectives on corporeality that come from body hackers themselves; I find that there are varying opinions within the body hacking community on the value of the material body. Many body hackers aim to transcend or render obsolete the physical body - in search of a more enlightened or convenient existence, for example - but others see body hacking as a practice that makes them more human. Many body hackers see the physical human condition as a very limited one that is in need of improvement. My paper explores these perspectives and presents a nuanced picture of the modern body hacking philosophy, as a fascinating example of the interface between materiality/coroporeality and technology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".