The Work of Rights in the Space of Neoliberal Governmentality's Limits: A Commentary on Tania Li's 'Governmentality'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governmentality has become pervasive in social science scholarship, particularly in anthropology. Tania Li provides an innovative conceptual turn in governmentality approaches in elucidating ‘assemblages.’ Assemblages are abstract, mobile, and dynamic forms that move across and reconstitute society, culture, and economy in the era of globalization. Li argues for ethnographic examinations into governmentality’s limits, which might enable bottoms-up approaches often overlooked in govermentality studies. A foray into governmentality’s limits requires an understanding of the cultural and political resources available to social agents in practices of articulation, with a keen awareness of historical transformations and contingencies. This also provides space to engage with rights and their role in critiques of power. Investigating the intersection of rights practices with govermentality regimes provide promising ethnographic opportunities to explore expressions of rights at govermentality’s limits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".