Seceding from Responsibility? Secession Movements in Los Angeles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to understand why secession movements gained momentum in Los Angeles and what their effect will be on regional governance. A brief discussion of liberal theories of secession demonstrates that they cannot explain secession movements at the urban scale, as they are exclusively focused on cases of nationalist secession from a nation-state. Furthermore, liberal theories of secession offer normative arguments on the right to secede. Following a change in California legislation granting municipalities the right to secede, the secessionist debate in Los Angeles is not so much concerned with normative issues, but more with devising an effective and revenue-neutral process for secession. Using a threefold theoretical approach based on theories of secession, regulation theory and theories of state rescaling, and theories of social movements, this paper argues that the 'political opportunity structures' provided by globalisation and the prevalent neo-conservatism, might explain how secession movements in Los Angeles were able to mobilise large efforts to their cause. We hold that globalisation has forced cities to re-open the debate on size and governance. Secession movements have been very successful in raising public awareness on the issue. Their strength lies mostly in their populism, well in tune with the prevalent wave of neo-conservatism. These movements use arguments well grounded in Southern California's complex history of regional fragmentation and consolidation. As a social project of the Right, they offer secession as a potential 'solution' to the problems of urban governance in the age of globalisation, in a context of simultaneous consolidation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".