‘I am rooted, but I flow’:<i>Écriture Fluide</i>, Becoming, and Healing in Kim de l’Horizon’s<i>Blutbuch</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the Swiss writer Kim de l’Horizon, writing is a political act that seeks to heal the wounds caused by the constraints of gender identities and the yoke of masculinity. I argue in this article that de l’Horizon elaborates a critical mode called écriture fluide in Blutbuch (2022). By taking this queer and feminist standpoint, de l’Horizon emphasizes that people are always in the process of becoming. This approach captures how de l’Horizon challenges conventional generic categories and linear narration, and how they seek to dissolve the borders between languages, gender identities, as well as human and natural worlds in this book. In particular, I demonstrate that the narrative structure and depictions of childhood growing pains push against a linear model of queer identity that challenges the notion that queer people must leave behind their past and their blood kin in order to become their “true” selves. (JSV)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".