MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1197646098 · doi:10.3138/cras.2014.012

Bureaucracy in America: Reading Ryan’s Budget with Agamben

2015· article· en· W1197646098 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher Trigg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracyGloryReading (process)PoliticsArgument (complex analysis)PhilosophyConvictionCriticismGovernment (linguistics)TheologyLawSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The article analyses Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget proposal in conjunction with Giorgio Agamben’s The Kingdom and the Glory (2011). Agamben contends that early Christian attempts to differentiate between “the being of God and his activity” continue to structure politics today. Drawing on Agamben’s reading of Thomas Aquinas, I demonstrate how the argument of Ryan’s budget is not only predicated on fiscal responsibility and a moral objection to “big government” but also on a politico-theological conviction that bureaucracies of men and women should not intervene in matters best left to a free market guided by divine providence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207