MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902903958 · doi:10.1017/9781009617802.007

The Texture of Time

2025· book-chapter· en· W6902903958 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporalityNarrativeThe HolocaustEternityStorytellingFunction (biology)Ideology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 7 explores some ways in which metaphors trauma shape the experience of the self and temporality through examples from refugees and Holocaust survivors. A key function of narrative is organizing the experience of time. Narratives of the self have consequences for the experience time. The discussion distinguishes two meta-narratives of the self in terms of their implicit root metaphors and associated temporalities: the adamantine self, characterized by endurance, integrity, coherence, autonomy, self-definition, self-determination, and self-control; and the relational self, characterized by flexibility, fluidity, sensitivity to context, multivocality, interdependence, and responsiveness. These models of the self are associated with different ideologies and forms of social life that shape trauma memory and experience. They also influence the ways that trauma experience is narrated through personal and collective stories. This occurs in settings that require an attentive listener. The ethics of storytelling has an essential counterpart in the ethics of listening, which involves particular forms of temporality and ways of participating in a cultural community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicHistory and Developments in AstronomyFrench-language works237,207