Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jordy Cummings 1 (JC): Your book is called No Local and it is an immanent critique of inward looking reactions to neoliberal capitalism.One poignant episode you recount surrounds urban agriculture, and the idea that we've come to a really problematic situation when poor people are encouraged to grow their own food in addition to working their jobs and raising their kids.What is the political or strategic problem with localism?What are your thoughts, for example, on campaigns like "Occupy the Economy" and so forth?greg sharzer 2 (gs): First I'd like to quickly define some terms.'Local' is a space distinct from larger regional, national and international spaces.But it's also relational, a moment in the global capital circuit.It's amorphous, changing depending on what you're measuring: political, social, economic, and so on.'Localism' is the fetishization of scale.It's assigning some positive benefit to a place precisely because it's small.It's impossible to be anti-local, unless you're against units of measurement.But I think it's a mistake to think that small is always beautiful.Localism assumes 1) local economies are fairer than global economies, 2) local spaces are autonomous from, and therefore more open to democratic control than larger spaces, and 3) the political project of revolutionary socialism is dead or, more accurately, never existed in the first place.I think these problems mean that localist schemes for change, such as 1 Jordy Cummings is a labour activist and PhD candidate in Political Science at York University.With a background in journalism, Cummings has written for a variety of publications both journalistic and academic, including Socialism & Democracy and Basics Community News Service.His dissertation focuses on radical theory in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the transition to modernity, using a Political Marxist methodology.He is also editing a reader of George Comninel's writings and is Interventions
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".