MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304184085 · doi:10.11647/obp.0303.08

8. Dead Gods and Geontopower

2022· book-chapter· en· W4304184085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristin M. Ferebee

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Universitaire de FranceYale University
KeywordsFraming (construction)HistoryHumanityLiteratureEnvironmental ethicsAestheticsArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the core of Jeff Lemire’s 2009-2013 graphic novel Sweet Tooth is a tale of resource extraction. This may seem an extraordinary claim to make about a dark fairy tale of a text that is chiefly concerned with the postapocalyptic relationship between an ageing hockey bruiser and a young deer-human hybrid boy. Yet Sweet Tooth #26-8 and #35 reveal that both the mysterious plague responsible for destroying human civilization in the world of Lemire’s story and the animal hybrid children inexplicably born in the same era have their origins in an ancient nonhuman force disinterred from the Arctic ice. The trope of nonhuman horrors unleashed from drilling or melting in the Arctic has become a common one; Sweet Tooth’s world-ecological (Moore) framing of the incident as one that brings together colonialism, capitalism, and science is not particularly unique. However, the Canadian Lemire’s refusal to differentiate between genetic science and indigenous cosmology in the comic’s portrayal of both viral pandemic and embodied animal gods offers the possibility of a geontological (Povinelli) reading. Here, I interpret Sweet Tooth as fundamentally a piece of climate change fiction— one that responds to an urgent need for new ways to understand a world that is not only post-Human, but also post-Life.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueOpen Book PublishersSame topicGothic Literature and Media AnalysisFrench-language works237,207