MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412090584 · doi:10.1080/09502386.2025.2527034

Registering the gang body in pain: violence and haunting in Central America

2025· article· en· W4412090584 on OpenAlexaff
María José Martos Méndez

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversitas Multimedia NusantaraCharlotte W. Newcombe FoundationUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsMedicineHistoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the challenges of registering the wounds carried by racialised subjects involved in extra-legal violence. It argues that reckoning with these lingering traumas demands a nuanced conception of violence­ that foregrounds mutual vulnerability. In Central America, gang members are routinely cast as perpetrators through colonial metaphors of animality and savagery, especially in mass media and official discourses, reinforcing the logics of the US-Central American war on gangs. As a result, the suffering endured by gang members remains largely illegible; they are recognized as agents of violence but not as its victims. Deemed invulnerable, the state, structural, and imperial harms they endure fail to register as violations. How, then, might one acknowledge these individuals as wounded subjects, haunted by the toll of racialised violence, without erasing the injuries they inflict? Such an acknowledgement is crucial for imagining an alternative ethical horizon that disrupts the punitive ideologies dominating current responses to gangs and other extra-state actors. Drawing on fieldwork with gangs in Central America and Mexico (2016–2019) and focusing on my encounter with a former MS-13 member from El Salvador, this article explores how gang members articulate their injuries within a transnational ethical field that renders the pain of the gang body unthinkable. It does so through an autoethnographic storytelling approach that also reveals the author’s own vulnerabilities as they surfaced in the surprising and affective terrain of research.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural StudiesSame topicCrime, Deviance, and Social ControlFrench-language works237,207