Celebrity power and powers of war: the rise of the COINdinistas in American popular media
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the public profile of a number of American defence intellectuals involved in the re-emergence of counterinsurgency strategy in US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although there has been attention to the rise of soft knowledges and new communication strategies in Western warfare, the recent foray of war experts into the glossy world of celebrity infotainment – that is, media venues that are designed to both inform and entertain – has not been explored. I argue that the fanfare that has sprouted up around these experts is an expression of the interconnections between war and public relations in which the legitimacy of US wars has always rested on how wars are packaged and sold to domestic publics. Furthermore, the presence of defence experts in popular media is an outgrowth of counterinsurgency techniques wherein the distinction between domestic and foreign publics is blurred, and mingling (virtually or otherwise) with ‘the people’ in their daily lives is part of the campaign 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it