MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W114887483 · doi:10.3138/cjh.43.3.451

The Conservative Capture of Anti-Relativist Discourse in Postwar America

2008· article· en· W114887483 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyrum Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelativismIdeologyRhetorical questionBannerPoliticsConservatismPragmatismFoundationalismLiberalismLawEpistemologySociologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As both conservatives and liberals rethought their fundamental assumptions in the wake of World War II, leaders of the conservative movement sought to combine anti-relativist cultural belifs with the traditional conservative concern with limited government. By attacking liberal icon John Dewey and his philosophy of pragmatism, conservative intellectuals such as William F. Buckley Jr., Richard Weaver, Eliseo Vivas, and Frank Meyer carried the banner of eternal truth as a right-wing rallying point. By mid-century, conservatives had captured the discourse of philosophical foundationalism for their cause and used this new principle to gain political success by ascribing societal problems to “liberal relativism.” Yet, what they gained in rhetorical advantage, they gave up in ideological coherence as postwar conservatives found themselves promoting state-sponsored truths, while also professing a libertarian belief in limited government.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.024
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207