Care for trapped things: literature and the critique of insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis conducts a materialist analysis of 20th and 21st century literature and cinema in relation to the history of insurance practices. It begins with an introduction that examines the key elements of what François Ewald has called the “insurantial imaginary." This introduction serves to establish what is at stake in the thesis as a whole, and establishes key theoretical reference points such as Marx and the Frankfurt School. Following this, I consider Canadian poet M. NourbeSe Philip's long poem Zong! in relation to the history of transatlantic slavery, maritime insurance and contemporary North American mass incarceration. Chapter 2 examines the Austrian poet Ingeborg Bachmann in relation to the post-war economic miracle in Germany and Austria. Chapter 3 examines the cinema of Pier Paolo Pasolini in relation to Italian fascism, social security and shifting conceptions of risk. The final chapter examines the poetry of the British poet Sean Bonney in relation to austerity policies in the UK and the withdrawal of welfare in response to the 2008 financial crisis. The thesis concludes with a coda that reviews its key findings and reflects on the relationship between historical struggle and concept formation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".