Powell’s point: ‘denial and deception’ at the UN
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the use of visual representation in Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations on 5 February 2003. The article borrows from Charles Goodwin’s theory of professional vision to argue that Powell’s presentation failed to develop a shared vision of the material presented. The primary flaw in this regard was Powell’s failure to acknowledge and account for the differences between modes of visual representation. Projections of text, photographs, video, maps and computer-generated illustrations were presented as synonymous forms of visual evidence. By not accounting for the unique properties of these media, Powell failed to articulate the images as evidentiary statements. What was to be a convincing display of visual evidence was instead a weak and discontinuous PowerPoint slide show. Using Powell’s presentation as a case-study, the author stresses the need to be more critically aware of one’s representational choices in acts of communication.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it