Riots in the UK: Morality, Social Imaginaries, and Conditions of Possibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In August 2011, rioting in UK cities captivated an international audience. This article combines empirical and theoretical work in order to examine the conditions of possibility for the riots and for the print media’s response to them. First a content analysis of fourteen British newspapers is provided to frame and criticize how the riots were portrayed. The article then turns to the conceptual framework provided by Charles Taylor’s work on social imaginaries and the modern moral order. The author argues that the media enacted the kind of moralizing impulse that Taylor helps us to understand. Conversely, that same media response is indicative of the inadequacies of Taylor’s account of morality and our imaginaries. Important features of our dominant imaginaries are neglected, such as how we identify moral fouls, along with power relations and the material conditions in which people live. Drawing on second-hand interviews with riot participants and on work by Stuart Hall, a more critical understanding of the riots is offered by viewing them in three distinct yet non-exclusive valences, specifically the transgression, culmination, and continuation of our moral order.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".