Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “war on terror” launched by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 is disturbing for many reasons, not least of which is the brutality with which this war has been carried out. A second feature of the American response to 9/11 to draw fire both at home and abroad is the “cowboy” swagger of President Bush and the Bush administration. A third point of criticism argues that 9/11 offered the Bush administration the perfect excuse to test the doctrine of “preemptive war” as a tool in the extension of American control of territory rich in oil reserves. These three features of the war on terror—its brutality, the cowboyism of the White House, and a context of American empire—are interrelated phenomena, and they are the product, at least in part, of the frontier myth that informs American popular culture and civil religion. The rhetoric, visual, and performative culture of the Bush Administration vis-à-vis the contemporary war of terror has too many resemblances to earlier “wars on savagery” to ignore. There is a new frontier to be conquered, and the Bush administration overtly mythologizes, ritualizes, frames, and sells this new “war” with reference to an earlier one, namely, the Indian wars.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".