MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916399285 · doi:10.3138/topia.15.27

Trial by Ordeal: Abu Ghraib and the Global Mediasphere

2006· article· en· W1916399285 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeff Lewis, Belinda Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrial by ordealMeaning (existential)Public sphereIdeologySociologyPolitical scienceMedia studiesAestheticsLawEpistemologyPoliticsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant social and cultural crisis is concentrated through photographs taken by military wardens at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. These photographs ‘represent’ critical issues, meanings and meaning-making processes, not merely of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, but of a broader global, cultural crisis. In order to elucidate these meaning and meaning-making processes it is necessary to re-theorize key elements of the photographs’ cultural setting. In particular, the ‘public sphere’ within which the photographs appear and are circulated should be understood as a mediasphere, the convocation of public and private engagement and expressivity within the global, networked communication systems. This is not a ‘clash of civilizations’, but a complex and unfolding crisis of meaning within and through cultures, a fragmentation of ideology and knowledge. It is a trial by media ordeal which challenges key assumptions in the liberal, democratic tradition. These photographs will not necessarily change the course of the war on terror, but they should contribute to the interrogation of our own culture, identity and perspectives.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.029
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207