Beyond Transformation and Regulation: Productive Tensions and the Analytics of Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of marginal groups is increasingly becoming part of contemporary governance. Critical appraisals categorize inclusionary mechanisms either as politically transformative or as regulative and part of the state's broader agenda of social control. In this article, we argue against both these positions and propose instead that inclusion is simultaneously regulative and transformative, that is, it is practiced in a state of—what Chantal Mouffe calls—“productive tension.” The article is divided into two parts: the first critically examines the theoretical literature on the tensions written into inclusive practices. The second part illustrates productive tensions in the case of inclusive strategies between ethnic/migrant groups and the government in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The article urges the reconceptualization of tensions and contradictions as part of the broader contours of contemporary radical democracy wherein erasures, assimilations, resistance, and transformations exist simultaneously. La inclusión de grupos marginados se está convirtiendo cada vez más en parte de la gobernabilidad contemporánea. Algunas evaluaciones críticas categorizan a los mecanismos de inclusión como políticamente transformadores o como reguladores y parte de un programa de control social más amplio por parte del estado. En este artículo argumentamos en contra de ambas posiciones y proponemos que la inclusión es simultáneamente regulativa y transformadora, es decir, es practicada en un estado de—lo que Chantall Mouffe llama—“tensión productiva.” El artículo es dividido en dos partes: la primera examina de manera crítica la literatura teórica de las tensiones que acompañan las prácticas de inclusión. La segunda ilustra las tensiones productivas en el caso de las estrategias de inclusión entre grupos étnicos/migrantes y el gobierno de Aotearoa/Nueva Zelanda. El artículo urge a la reconceptualización de las tensiones y contradicciones como parte de un entorno más amplio de la democracia radical contemporánea en donde el rechazo, asimilación, resistencia y transformación coexisten simultáneamente.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.138 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".