Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 8 considers the politics and poetics of alterity or otherness. Others confront us with experiences that may be radically unfamiliar, strange, and unsettling. This may be compounded by illness, trauma, and cultural difference. With empathy and imagination, we can gain an understanding of another’s experience, see their perspective, and build a picture of their predicament. The imaginative spaces and places in their stories offer us a way into another’s lifeworld—even when that world is profoundly different from our own. Narrative medicine provides a pedagogy of empathic understanding through literature. While much of this work employs story, lyric poetry offers another mode of articulating illness experience that may be closer to patients’ emotionally charged, confused efforts to make sense of experiences that do not fit cultural models or templates. The work of the poets Paul Celan and Edouard Glissant sheds light on the power of language to bridge disparate worlds and on the ethical stance needed when empathy fails. A poetics of alterity has implications for efforts to understand individuals’ illness experience and grounding an ethics of care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".