Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hegemonic decisions institute and shape the ideological terrain in which politics occurs; different forms of decision will structure the terrain in different ways. This article explores the decisions inaugurating specifically democratic forms of hegemony. It analyses this question by investigating the conditions under which such decisions emerge. Its starting‐point is Laclau's account of hegemony as a decision taken in an undecidable terrain. However, by utilizing a morphological approach, I argue that undecidability cannot be understood and its consequences for politico‐ideological analysis cannot be developed to the full, unless the other terms giving sense to undecidability are taken seriously. In particular, I give attention to Derrida's account of responsibility and democracy‐to‐come, linked to a very specific understanding of the subject and the decision. I argue that once we understand undecidability in this context, it can no longer be regarded as a mere propadeutic to hegemony per se. Rather, it contains important insights into the institution of democratic political orders.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".