“Resilient City”? The Double Face of the 2006 Mardi Gras Celebrations in New Orleans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six months after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, the residents of New Orleans decided to follow the tradition and organize a scaled-down Mardi Gras despite the perception that the city was still inundated with water. This article first analyses the 2006 carnival parades as the expression of a desire for “normality” as well as an attempt to memorialize Katrina. It then moves on to a discussion of the extent to which such a narrative of resilience was in fact devised and promoted by city officials and public editors in order to address various concerns, such as the decline of the tourism industry, divisions over the way reconstruction should happen, or the unflattering portrayal of the Crescent City in national and international venues. Finally, it examines how the combination of conservatism and transgression that characterized Mardi Gras discourse in 2006 echoes past debates on the propriety of carnival, making post-Katrina celebrations less an exception to the rule than an illustration of the double face of New Orleans Mardi Gras and of the city itself.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".