Politicking the personal: examining academic literature and British National Party beliefs and wishes about intimate interracial relationships and mixed heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing heavily on our earlier work in this area (Perry and Sutton 2006 Perry, B. and Sutton, M. 2006. Seeing red over black and white: Popular and media representations of interracial relationships as precursors to racial violence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/Revue Canadienne de criminology et de justice penale, 48(6): 887–904. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; forthcoming Perry, B. and Sutton, M. Forthcoming. “Crossing the line: Discourses on intimate interracial relationships in the US and UK”. In Sticks and stones: Writings and drawings on hatred, Edited by: Poynting, S. and Wilson, J. Sydney: Sydney Institute of Criminology and Federation Press. [Google Scholar]), this article discusses the issue of intimate interracial relationships (IIRs) within the context of the UK Government's current concerns with social cohesion and provides an overview of the literature on hate and prejudice against those in IIRs in the UK and USA. Following an examination of the official statistics and the numbers of mixed race people in England and Wales, we move on to provide a brief but disturbing glimpse of what it would mean if the BNP's long-term dream of winning a national election were actually to happen in light of their official website published proposed policies against IRRs and mixed heritage people.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".