MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410957338 · doi:10.1080/08989575.2025.2491899

What Isn’t Autobiography?: The Sequel

2025· article· en· W4410957338 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuea/b Auto/Biography Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAutobiographical and Biographical Writing
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiographyHistoryArtPsychoanalysisPhilosophyArt historyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty years after the publication of my article “What Isn’t Autobiography?”, I review the field of Life Writing with both curiosity and a sense of trepidation. Rather than attempting an exhaustive overview of developments in autobiography and biography studies since 1985, I offer a personal account, grounded in my review of MLA convention programs from 2008 to 2023. Embracing the self-reflective ethos heralded by terms like “autoethnography,” this essay positions itself as a subjective account by an older, white, cisgender male scholar of a field that has evolved dramatically over the past 40 years. Rather than asking again “What isn’t Autobography?”, I now pose the question: “Is Life Writing the Right Rubric?”

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.245 · 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