MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052058655 · doi:10.1353/crv.2008.0004

"Bryan, Bryan, Bryan, Bryan": Democratic Theory, Populism, and Philip Roth's "American Trilogy"

2007· article· en· W2052058655 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Jewish Fiction Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrilogyPopulismDemocracyLaw and economicsHistoryDemocratic theoryArt historyPhilosophySociologyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Populism, as both ideology and social movement, is nearly a universal, albeit sporadic, feature of all modern democratic political systems. Populism is also arguably the only example of an indigenous radical mass movement in America and, after the discredited state of socialism, the only continuing source of democratic protest. Yet populism does not enjoy a central place in democratic theory. In fact, many writers contend that when populism arises, it has a destabilizing effect on democratic regimes. Even when others attempt to credit populism, they acknowledge the existence of significant negative features. This essay reviews the contested status of populism and suggests a greater appreciation of its positive contribution to democratic theory can be reached through an analysis of Philip Roth's "American Trilogy." Like Roth, students of populism place their assessments in the context of historical narratives. Thus, Roth's fictional recreations of post-war America can be compared to the analyses of "populist moments" in America as analyzed by both populist critics and defenders. Unlike most democratic theorists, however, Roth is willing to explore the nature and source of populist anger and its related expressions, and thus to expose its poignant dimensions. By appending Roth's insights, it is possible to ameliorate populism's contested status in democratic theory by acknowledging the positive role of emotion, properly understood, in political protest. Le populisme, en tant qu'idéologie et mouvement social, est presque une caractéristique universelle, quoique sporadique, de tous les systèmes politiques démocratiques modernes. Malgré cela, le populisme n'occupe pas une place centrale dans la théorie démocratique. En effet, bon nombre d'écrivains sont d'avis que, lorsque le populisme fait surface, il a un effet déstabilisateur sur les régimes démocratiques. Le présent essai jette un coup d'oeil sur l'état contesté du populisme et suggère qu'il est possible de mieux apprécier sa contribution positive à la théorie démocratique par le truchement d'une analyse du livre de Philip Roth « American Trilogy ».

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · 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