Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilient Life: The Art of Living Dangerously (2014) by Brad Evans and Julian Reid, interrogates the political consequences of the adoption of resilience discourse.They argue that new liberal regimes engender a type of politics that moves beyond security and community towards a "catastrophic imaginary that promotes insecurity by design" (p.2).This neoliberal concept of insecurity by design, they argue, stems from ecological and biological theory, which suggests that living systems often survive because of their ability to adapt to their environment as opposed to securing themselves from the environment.This "insecurity" is reinforced by resilience discourse, which convinces people that there is risk in believing in security.Under this conceptualization, instead of securing oneself from changes, one should instead accept that life is an unending process of surviving and adaptation in the face of change.Thus, human capacities are expected to mimic other living systems which "develop not on account of their ability to secure themselves from danger, but through their abilities to absorb the perturbations on account of their necessary exposure to them" (p.62).It is this application of the ecological to the realm of the social that is particularly disturbing for the authors because it suggests that this necessary exposure to risk prevents the subject's ability to resist or demand security from the regimes that govern them (p.62).In our contemporary neoliberal moment, resilience presents itself as the ideal mechanism that individuals must possess to survive a life of insecurity.This insecure life is one in which it is necessary for individuals, especially the vulnerable, to adapt to a continually-shifting baseline of acceptability of economic, social, cultural and environmental disaster.In short, insecurity is the new normal and resilience is the strategy for coping.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.009 |
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".