Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue of Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies considers the anarchist milieu in the ten years since the attacks of September 11, 2001 (hereafter “9/11”). A host of obvious questions accompany an attempt to encapsulate an event such as 9/11 and the ten years that followed, foremost among them: Why situate 9/11 as a date of exceptional importance? Does a reflection of this kind merely contribute to, for example, neoconservative attempts to enshrine 9/11 as a propagandistic tool? Memorialization often carries reactionary politics, whether intentional or not. The most common reactions to 9/11 can be categorized broadly as liberal, conservative, and skeptical. Liberals tended to see the attacks of 9/11 as blowback for wayward US government foreign policy since World War II. Conservative responses accepted the narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report, and framed the attacks as an expression of a “clash of civilizations” and the touchstone of a new era in world affairs. Skeptics believed the 9/11 Commission was too compromised to provide an accurate account of the event, and often called for a new investigation. Anarchist responses varied, but may be summed up by the title of punk band Leftover Crack’s 2004 album: Fuck World Trade. The title actually originated in a pre-9/11 work by Choking Victim, a continuity of political analysis, however crude,
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".