MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389018132 · doi:10.37536/reden.2023.5.2171

Submitting to Loving Authority: Wonder Woman’s DeleuzoGuattarian Ethics

2023· article· en· W4389018132 on OpenAlexaff
Troy Michael Bordun

Bibliographic record

VenueREDEN. Revista española de estudios norteamericanos/Revista española de estudios norteamericanos · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWonderNarrativeHEROVirtueAestheticsSociologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyLiteraturePsychologyArtEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I read Grant Morrison and Yanick Paquette’s Wonder Woman: Earth One, Volume 1 (2016) through Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s philosophy to challenge the superhero comics narrative convention of using violence as the sole means in a hero’s transcendent pursuit of justice. Deleuze and Guattari critique goal-oriented sexuality as a call for different modes of thinking about ethics and interpersonal relations. I apply their insights to superhero comics wherein we find heroes’ aggressive climaxes of physical power that set things right, i.e., back to the way things were. Most heroes are thus goal-oriented, hyper-violent, and conservative; they beat the villains into compliance to return the world to its previous order. Wonder Woman, on the contrary, turns towards what I call the ethics of the caress. She deploys intimate conversation and physical affection as well as espouses vulnerability to thereby transform her interlocutors – whether men or fellow Amazons – into submissive counterparts to “change the world for the better” (Morrison and Paquette 2016).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.035
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREDEN. Revista española de estudios norteamericanos/Revista española de estudios norteamericanosSame topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207