MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413087307 · doi:10.1080/1369801x.2025.2498361

Species Metaphors and Biopolitics in Contemporary Novels of Forced Migration

2025· article· en· W4413087307 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Arnds

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopowerMetaphorSociologyLiteratureArtAestheticsPhilosophyPolitical scienceLinguisticsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the populist front the language and imagery used for migrants reinforce the perception of them as trespassers and criminals, implying fears of their appearance in large numbers or as lone wolf terrorists. The German right-wing party AfD compares the recent appearance of wolves on German soil with what it perceives as trespassing migrants; Trump used to refer to migrants from the global South as “animals”, labelling them as “predators and invaders infesting America”; David Cameron famously invoked the images of biblical locust infestations by comparing migrants with “swarms of people coming across the Mediterranean”; and UK media pundit Katie Hopkins compared migrants with “feral humans” and “cockroaches”. It is a rhetoric that has become an integral part of what Fintan O’Toole has described as the “new pre-rather than old post-fascist” political climate. In my essay I will discuss three contemporary novels, Francisco Cantú’s The Line Becomes a River (2018), Norbert Scheuer’s Winterbienen (Winter Bees, 2019), and Rawi Hage’s Cockroach (2008) to demonstrate how these authors instrumentalize three species metaphors – wolves, bees, and cockroaches – for a literary representation of forced migration. Their works show us how fluid such metaphors are and how these authors reconfigure three species metaphors and redeem them from former cultural and political representations.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.032
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventionsSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207