Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay focuses on the many “baby books” currently available that consist mainly of photographs of of other images of babies, and considers how these images might represent replications or restagings of the mirror stage and function as versions of the Ideal-I for their implied baby viewers. As images of actual children, the photographs in these books represent what most adult viewers take to be the most realistic representations of babyhood possible––the way babies actually look, which, in the context of Lacan’s Ideal-I, might better be understood as the way babies are actually supposed to look as currently understood. In terms of conventional adult assumptions about how baby viewers might look at and understand these images in relation to themselves, these images quite literally restage the mirror stage––show the baby an image of a baby to identify with and see as what it ought to be itself. By considering the implications of a number of photographs and other images of of babies in baby books, the essay explores what these books tell their implied baby reader/viewers about what it means to be a baby, and about what is the right kind of baby to be.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".