Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his article, Barnett makes a convincing case for the need to consider securitization as a mode of problematization. When it comes to security, he enjoins us to consider the role of publics and publicness without necessarily committing to an unreflexive liberal ideal of transparency, non-interference and openness. This response focuses on two central issues that emerge when we pay attention to publics, security and the spaces of their unfolding. The first one entails a reflection on the different understandings of the political and the legitimacy conferred to the different publics attached to them. The second one is the need to deepen our understanding of subjecthood in relation to security and resilience. Acknowledging and better accounting for the great variation in different subjects’ capacity to enact resilience or internalize security norms cast doubts on some security studies’ and resilience studies’ bleak assessment of governmentality and its workings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.073 |
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".