Multiplicity and ontological instability in nonhuman hearts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reflects on the relationship between biological bodies and technological artifacts, based on ethnographic research on the development of circulatory assist technologies, known as artificial hearts. To understand the embodiment that such mechanical devices help to produce, we aim to characterize two types of bodies enacted from medical practices and biotechnologies designed for patients with advanced heart failure. The immunological bodies, produced from heart transplantation, will be contrasted with the bionic bodies, composed of the assembly with artificial hearts. We propose that it is necessary to consider each of these technologies as co-produced with different natures, supported by specific materialities, practices, moralities and assumptions. The attention given to practices and materiality will allow to highlight the various material-semiotic intertwinings. Tracing the development trajectory of this field will allow exploring the imagination from which such interventions emerge and the transformations that have occurred, emphasizing the link to the body-machine woven in the biomedical scope.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".