MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321462790 · doi:10.7202/1096062ar

Nocturnal Experiments on Worthless Bodies

2023· article· en· W4321462790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jayson Althofer

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFantasyFactory (object-oriented programming)Capital (architecture)SightVampirePsychoanalysisAestheticsArt historySociologyHistoryPhilosophyArtLiteraturePsychologyVisual artsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friedrich Engels’ The Condition of the Working-Class in England (1845) features a pioneering multisensory ethnography of the factory system. His critique of the industrial revolutionization of light for 24/7 production adapted a contemporaneous Gothic imaginary of the night. In The Philosophy of Manufactures (1835), Andrew Ure repudiated a physician who condemned night-work’s effects on factory children – “if light is excluded from tadpoles, they never become frogs” – by counter-claiming: “the number and brilliancy of the gas-lights in a cotton-mill” militated against child-labourers lingering “in the tadpole state.” Dispelling Ure’s thinking as blinding fantasy, Engels revealed “the vampire property-holding class” penetrating night-workers with “very powerful light … most injurious to the sight.” He brilliantly anticipated Karl Marx’s demonstration in Capital (1867) that industrial revolutionism, involving capital’s rapid take-up of new lighting technologies, occurred “at the expense of the workpeople. Experimenta in corpore vili, like those of anatomists on frogs, were formally made.”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207