Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is hard to live in a society while thinking that the society, in virtually every aspect of its being, is a prison. The work of Michel Foucault shows that while it may be hard, it is not impossible. To be sure, this view is not unique to Foucault. Adorno, too, for instance, speaks of “the open-air prison which the world is becoming.” But Foucault surely went further than anyone else in building this conception into a full-fledged political philosophy. The first thing to be said about Discipline and Punish ( Surveiller et Punir ) is that it is vastly more relevant to the world in which we are currently living (a post-9/11 world informed by ubiquitous concerns about security and surveillance) than the book was when first published (1975). When I stand in line at the cafeteria in the building where I have my university office, to pay for my lunch, a sign on the way to the cashier reads: “WARNING. YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE. THESE PREMISES ARE PROTECTED BY 24 HOUR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE.” As the original French title rightly conveys, although Foucault’s book is a history of the modern prison, the idea of surveillance is conceptually prior to (or more primordial than) the notion of punishment. What preoccupies Foucault is not that modern societies punish delinquents, which of course premodern societies did as well, but the fact that they punish in a mode of penetrating surveillance, where in effect the gaze of the punishing apparatus is more dehumanizing than confinement or loss of liberty (or so at least Foucault’s critical analysis seems to suggest). In a sense, Foucault’s idea is that the surveillance that is part and parcel of modern punishment is worse than the punishment itself, or captures more fundamentally the basic nature of the “carceral society” in which we live. If that is so, then all of us, not just the delinquents and outcasts, are diminished or dehumanized by the omnipresent gaze of the authorities that monitor us, that track our movements and keep video records of our every step.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".