MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382136322 · doi:10.22161/ijels.83.59

Post-modernism, Paraphilia, Sadism, Necrophilia, and Sexually Motivated Homicide: An Interdisciplinary Reading of Dennis Cooper’s “Frisk” (1991)

2023· article· en· W4382136322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Briedik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrime and Detective Fiction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomicideParaphiliaTypologyCriminologyPsychologyPsychopathologyContext (archaeology)PostmodernismPsychoanalysisSociologyHistoryPoison controlPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologySuicide preventionMedicineLiteratureAnthropologySexual behaviorArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the representation of sexually motivated homicide in Dennis Cooper’s “Frisk” (1991) while employing an interdisciplinary framework in methodology, specifically: psychopathology and forensic psychology. First, the novel’s cultural context points to its postmodern strategies, indicative of the psychopathological effects of late capitalist culture. Then the paper turns its attention to the novel’s protagonist, Dennis, who is initially diagnosed with paraphilic disorder as defined by the “Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders” (2013). Afterward, implementing a typology developed by Anglo-Canadian criminologist Lee Mellor, Dennis is analyzed and categorized as a homicidal necrophilic offender and a homicidal sexual sadist. The detailed investigation of his sexually motivated crimes places the character among the most notorious serial killers in the world.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.022
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English Literature and Social SciencesSame topicCrime and Detective Fiction StudiesFrench-language works237,207