MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129842350 · doi:10.1177/1468796813484724

The jealous god: A problem in the definition of nationalism

2013· article· en· W2129842350 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Millard

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnicities · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismSacrificeParochialismSociologyNational identityDilemmaLawLoyaltyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholarly definitions of nationalism often characterize the nation as the supreme object of loyalty (a ‘jealous god’). Such restrictive definitions are unwise because they needlessly exclude a wide range of pro-national beliefs and practices. Demonstrating this, however, is harder than often thought, because the close linkage between nation and jurisdiction seems to entail a prioritization of national attachment over other identities. More pluralist accounts of nationhood, such as those of Margaret Moore or Charles Taylor, only partially resolve this dilemma, which requires consideration of the ultimate sacrifices entailed by war and conscription. Yet these cases of ultimate sacrifice should be understood not as endemic to nationhood alone but to all forms of strong communal attachment, when faced with existential threat. As it is this threat, rather than nationhood per se, that drives nationalism to take absolute forms, restrictive definitions may justifiably be rejected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.078
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnicitiesSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207