MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394895419 · doi:10.3828/jrs.2024.5

Effects mobilizing affects

2024· article· en· W4394895419 on OpenAlexaff
Inês Faro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Romance Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationTone (literature)Affect (linguistics)DictatorshipAestheticsAgency (philosophy)MaterialismPoliticsPsychoanalysisFeelingSociologyPsychologyLiteratureSocial psychologyArtEpistemologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to show the many ways in which the affective tone of the short story ‘Sólo vine a hablar por teléfono’ (1992) [‘I only came to use the phone’] ([1992] 2006) by Gabriel García Márquez is produced, while also reflecting on the significance of adopting such a critical approach. To do so, I draw on contemporary affect theory, particularly on Sianne Ngai’s view of ‘affective tone’ as an expansion of affects as effects, and on Jane Bennett’s concept of ‘vital materialism’. The story tells the journey of a Mexican woman who is institutionalized and subjected to unimaginable abuses during Franco’s dictatorship in Spain. By focusing on the author’s use of literary effects and considering the aesthetics and the political together, this analysis reveals how negative or strange feelings are multiply generated, contributing to create a pervasive sense of uncanniness both within the text and in the reader. I conclude by arguing that an approach that considers how e ffects mobilize a ffects ultimately exposes how great fiction, through the mechanics of the text, can efficiently deploy transhistorical and trans-spacial structures in the operation of affects related with processes of dehumanization and loss of agency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.380 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Romance StudiesSame topicHumor Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207