MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280522176 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.2021-0014

The Theology of Attention in <i>The Fault in Our Stars</i>: John Green’s Novel Contribution to “Thinking About Suffering”

2022· article· en· W4280522176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ewan Bowlby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Literature and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassionDoctrinePhilosophyTheologyPsychoanalysisSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the theology of attention that unfolds in John Green’s young adult novel The Fault in Our Stars. Using Simone Weil’s “doctrine of attention” as an interpretative lens, I explain how Green uses literary fiction to outline an alternative to abstract theological “solutions” to the horror of child cancer. Through intertextual connections to Infinite Jest and The Brothers Karamazov, Green implies that a focus on individual suffering is the basis for true compassion, translating the theological vision of “attentive love” presented by Foster Wallace and Dostoevsky for contemporary readers.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicContemporary Literature and CriticismFrench-language works237,207