The Gravity of Imperial Politics: Some Thoughts on Power and Representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its point of departure Edward Said's consistent emphasis on the need to examine critically and challenge the imperialism of U.S. power. In much of the literature on globalization the specificity of U.S. imperial politics has been left out of account, and yet today, more than ever, and especially in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it is crucial to prioritize the analysis of U.S. imperial globality. I discuss two intersecting dimensions of the imperial problematic: (a) the specificity of imperial politics as written and deployed by the United States and (b) the interweaving of geopolitical power and the subordinating representations of imperialized peoples. Overall, the imperial relation is defined in terms of three interlocking elements: (a) an invasiveness of power that has effects in relation to resources as well as culture and politics; (b) a discursive imposition of the imperial power's own values and practices; and (c) a pervasive lack of respect and recognitio...
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".