Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective Dreams: Political Imagination and Community, Keally D. McBride, University Park PA: Penn State University Press, 2005, pp. 157. Political imagination is greatly underrated, not least because there is so little of it in what passes for “official” politics these days. But it is also understudied by political theorists whose domain encompasses the many imagined but rarely realized versions of the “good society” handed down from the past. And yet political imagination is arguably central to every vision of an alternative political order. Plato never lived in his Republic; Hobbes never wandered through the state of nature; and Marx never knew the rule of the “associated producers.” But, all of them may have felt that they had glimpsed elements of these alternate futures in their own time. Hobbes, after all, lived through the English Revolution which he may have thought resembled a “war of all against all” and Marx witnessed the heady days of the Paris Commune. This is surely as true today. Social conservatives may espy the glimmerings of a heavenly utopia in their local church group. Progressive social activists may see a new social order prefigured in their food co-op or trade union. Political imagination, in other words, is just as much a part of the world we inhabit as it is of those we dream of inhabiting. However, as Keally McBride observes, “Imagination itself, as opposed to its products, is generally not studied in political science. But it is our best tool for changing the world” (1).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".