Bibliographic record
Abstract
<JATS1:p>In this major new study, James Aaron Green provides the first account of literary thought experiments published from 1878 to 1918 that speculate on the prospect of radically longer lives. Green argues that these fictions helped negotiate the emergent experiences and meanings of age and aging during years when long-established norms were being eroded and supplanted. By recovering fictions by lesser-known writers and reevaluating those by more familiar writers like H. G. Wells and J. M. Barrie, the study reveals the surprising abundance and formal diversity of such speculative accounts. Through readings supported by archival materials (antiaging advertisements, medical treatises), these accounts are shown to have intervened on a wide range of scientific and social questions related to age and aging—from transfusion to colonialism, and second chances to apocalyptic demography. Ultimately, Green’s innovative historicist study proves how close attention to fictions of radical life extension can not only renovate our understanding of historical attitudes to age and aging but also those of today.</JATS1:p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".