MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774109797

No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need

2017· article· en· W2774109797 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Howard A. Doughty

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinnovation journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeniusNewspaperPoliticsDoctrineMedia studiesCorporationSociologyLawHistoryPolitical scienceArt history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naomi Klein No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning World We Need. Toronto, Canada: Penguin Random House, 20171.Over past two decades, Naomi Klein has produced four books plus a collection of newspaper articles and other short pieces (Klein, 2002). I have reviewed two of books in The Innovation Journal. The first one, No Logo, was part of a review essay on books that demonized corporation in Vol. 6, No. 3 (2001). The second, The Shock Doctrine (2007) somehow slipped through my personal editorial cracks (read but not reviewed here or elsewhere), but a generally favourable review of third, This Changes Everything, appeared in these pages in Vol. 19, No 3 (2014). With No Is Not Enough, I am finally going for trifecta. Even covering three out of four, however, requires an explanation.Naomi Klein isn't an original or an especially profound thinker. Few such people make it to print, and fewer produce books that attract many readers or make a big impact on events of their days. Conveying extraordinary brilliance in conventional, accessible language is a talent that escapes most deep thinkers and writers of genius. Naomi Klein, however, does next best thing, and she does it rather well. She has sold a ton of books, is widely interviewed in all major media, contributes opinion pieces to widely diverse print and online journals, appears to have attracted a measurable constituency and, from at least one perspective, makes a fair amount of common sense. So, when I said she was neither an original nor a profound thinker, I intended no disrespect and, of course, Ms. Klein makes no such claims. She is and seems content to be a dedicated activist and a well-tuned popularizer. In fact, if people such as Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump hadn't so thoroughly discredited concept, I might even have referred to her as a populist. And I'd have meant it as a compliment.Why should readers of The Innovation Journal pay attention to her? The simple reason is that she raises some of most salient issues of our day and puts them in language that ordinary citizens can understand. Her main topics should be atop every government's agenda. If innovation is to contribute to public good, it must address issues such as vitality of democracy, fairness of public procedures, application of universal human rights, equity of economic arrangements and sustainability of planetary biosphere. Anything less is political distraction and an abrogation of our deepest moral and responsibilities. Others, of course, may do a better job of discussing any one of these pillars of modern civilization; but, few are her equal in provoking intelligent public consideration of them all. Moreover, Klein's personal journey through complexity and complementarity of issues she discusses is so open, so honest, occasionally so vulnerable but also and always so passionate, that it is hard not to follow along. Those who do so will almost certainly be amply rewarded.2.It took Naomi Klein almost a decade to bring together ideas she'd accumulated as a journalist and political activist and to condense them into her first three manageable volumes. It was certainly worth investment of time and effort. Permit me to rehearse her line of thought.No Logo was an attack on the brand bullies, multinational enterprises that exploited workers on periphery to sell commodities and merchandise to exploited middling and lower classes in centres of empire, or of what Kari Levitt (2002) called hinterland and metropolis in Silent Surrender, a splendid little book that once inspired social democratic and nationalist dissenters and still holds up well. In her initial enterprise, Klein gave a shout-out to ethical shareholders, culture jammers, street reclaimers, McUnion organizers, human rights hacktivists, school-logo fighters and Internet corporate watchdogs. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinnovation journalSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207