Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: When it comes to the veil, religious, political, aesthetic, and personal values are constantly mixed, and any attempt to disentangle them can too easily be foiled by the bias of the observer. In principle, the veil is (represents, signifies) nothing that can be spelled out in terms of fixed symbolisms, but it will only function in a certain way. In theory, any veil is cool because it plays with limits, status, and privileges. It does not simply attempt to install purity and moral perfection. I compare veiling with some of the principle virtues of African American coolness: moderation and self-control. Coolness is at odds with puritan traditions and invents its own virtue code of moderation because it strives to obtain access to a formerly forbidden space. However, that alone would limit coolness to republican virtues; in order to become cool there must also be provocation. The cool person is usually in a non-power position and challenges those who have power in masked and ironical ways. Therefore, coolness must always contain just the right amount of flexibility and “fluency.” African Americans who wear sunglasses, speak Ebonics, and overemphasize their black identity create transcultural identities through the principle of coolness. Can the veil function as such a tool of cool? Does this piece of cloth maintain the crucial balance between visibility and non-visibility, assimilation and cultural resistance, submission and subversion, control and the inability to control? Or is it not too likely to tip over into either submissive disappearance or mono-cultural, fundamentalist combat?
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".