MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226369232 · doi:10.33137/ijournal.v7i1.37892

The risk of connectivity and finding God in the network: Analyzing Serial Experiments Lain through a critical surveillance lens

2021· article· en· W4226369232 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophie Anzivino

Bibliographic record

VenueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of Information · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimeHackerAutonomySociologyThrough-the-lens meteringConversationEntertainmentInternet privacyMedia studiesLens (geology)Computer securityLawComputer sciencePolitical scienceCommunicationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1998 anime Serial Experiments Lain presents a philosophical overload as it examines the violent and violating consequences of an overreliance on technology inflicted upon individuals and society. Exploring a society in which communications are structured by the Wired, a far-reaching network that integrates all aspects of communications and entertainment media, characters in the anime turn to technology in various ways to attempt to solve their social and emotional issues. Their issues do not dissipate, but rather their privacy and autonomy. Bringing Serial Experiments Lain into conversation with Foucault’s Birth of the Prison and Ian Hacking’s The Taming of Chance, this paper examines the continuity between the religious worshipping of gods and the fervorous belief in technology as sources of predictability, stability, and connection to something bigger than themselves. As the anime, Foucault, and Hacking warn, the consequences of such attitudes to privacy and autonomy are significant.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of InformationSame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207