MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059723171 · doi:10.1521/siso.2015.79.1.38

A Critique of Panitch and Gindin's Theory of American Empire

2014· article· en· W2059723171 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience & Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElite Sociology and Global Capitalism
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireGlobalizationCapitalismPoliticsHistorical materialismState (computer science)MaterialismPolitical economySociologyCapital (architecture)ReflexivityPolitical scienceSocial scienceEpistemologyMarxist philosophyHistoryLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire marks Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin's most recent attempt at furthering their thesis that globalization should be understood as an informal American empire. Their analysis, however, is hampered by three overarching issues that result from their inattention to many of the precepts of historical materialism. First, they treat capital as being predominantly national, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; second, they treat the nation-state as an actor; and third, they neglect the question of political space, and the extent to which the social relations upon which globalization rests must necessarily also transform the structure and form of existing political institutions. As such, Panitch and Gindin incorrectly label globalization as a form of American imperialism, without being critically reflexive as to the concepts they are using, and the particular nation-state-centric framework through which such concepts operate.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.317 · 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