Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This essay serves as an introduction to a collection of essays on the topic of “Romantic Anarchism.” Along with providing a summary of the main points of each essay, the introduction undertakes a critical and historical analysis of the master narratives through which romanticism and anarchism have been historically linked, usually in order to be dismissed, such as the charge that both are theoretically confused, unscientific, too contradictory, too “aesthetic,” practically unworkable, as well as politically and emotionally immature. Looking to the dramatic resurgence of cultural and academic interest in anarchist ideas in recent years, which some critics have called an “anarchist turn” across the disciplines, the essay explores how these master narratives have begun to break down. In so doing, the essay argues that the recent anarchist turn necessitates the subsequent re‐turn of and to its roots in romantic‐era literature. The introduction then poses a series of questions in order to frame the issue's overall scope and concerns: What would it mean to locate, or generate, an anarchist turn in romanticism, and a corresponding return of romanticism for anarchism? What developments in the fields of anarchist studies and romantic literary criticism make it possible to think these two disciplines together today? And in what ways does the idea of anarchy, more broadly construed as a figure for the deconstitution of disciplinary archē , raise questions about the very identity and nature of a critical field? How might anarchism provide useful coordinates for romantic studies to navigate a post‐Marxist critical landscape?
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it