MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2496979309 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139343282.008

A Rights Revolution?

2015· book-chapter· en· W2496979309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kunal M. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)CapitalismCold warState (computer science)Intervention (counseling)Economic historyPolitical sciencePower (physics)World War IIPolitical economyDevelopment economicsEconomyEconomicsHistoryLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In the aftermath of World War II, the United States emerged as the world's leading power. As the country plunged into the Cold War, the emergence of a vast military-industrial complex, combined with the expansion of consumer culture, resulted in a quarter century of robust economic growth. During this heyday of American capitalism, both Republicans and Democrats, but especially the latter, were open to state intervention in the economy and the funding of social programs. During this period, newly emboldened by the United States’ victory over Fascism and its ideological struggle with the Soviet Union, the country's historically marginalized and subordinated groups demanded that it make good on its stated liberal and egalitarian commitments. The resulting “rights revolution” had the effect of strengthening individual rights, proscribing formal legal racism and sexism, and injecting a measure of equality into the polity. Various spaces – public and private, educational and residential, professional and recreational, political and civic – that had once been closed to blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians, women, and others opened up through force of law. The constitutionalization of a “right to travel” throughout national territory dismantled the internal borders that states, counties, and localities had long set in place to control the influx and presence of the native-born poor. Between 1950 and 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court also made it much harder for the U.S. government to expatriate American citizens against their will and thereby to convert citizens into aliens. These developments did not by any means bring older hierarchies to an end, but they did much to diminish domestic groups’ enforced foreignness vis-à-vis the polity. From the perspective of immigration and citizenship law, the post–World War II period was one of decidedly mixed consequences. One change that took place – a consequence of the country's Cold War commitments and its rights revolution – was both important and enduring. After 1965, race, ethnicity, and national origin were no longer formal bars to immigration and naturalization. If formal racial classifications fell away, however, critical features of the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century immigration regime became entrenched.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→