Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global citizenship is a concept that has been both propounded and critiqued on a number of grounds in recent scholarship, but little attention has been paid to what it might mean in an age of empire. Beginning with an analysis of American empire, the author argues that there has been an important shift in the meaning of imperial rule from what was initially a “realpolitik” version of empire in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to what has become a more “liberal” form of imperial power since late 2003. Whereas the former sought national security in a seemingly anarchical and hostile world, the latter has sought to spread a particular kind of globalized citizenship to the world, particularly in the Middle East. The author argues that the ideological grounding for such an imperial “civilizing mission” needs to be challenged through an alternative theorization of global citizenship. Thus, the second half of the article suggests a new theory of global citizenship rooted in two basic principles: social rights (in order to address the least well off) and shared fate (in order to draw the links between the north/south and east/west). Taken together, they provide a starting point for an alternative theory of global citizenship that speaks not simply against empire but to it.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".