MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809232690 · doi:10.1080/14735784.2018.1481760

A genealogical reading of security: power, politics and resistance

2018· article· en· W2809232690 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture, theory and critique/Culture, theory & critique · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCentre for Research on Intermediality, University of Montreal
KeywordsResistance (ecology)PoliticsConstitutionPower (physics)Meaning (existential)Reading (process)Order (exchange)SociologyFoundation (evidence)Environmental ethicsLaw and economicsPolitical sciencePolitical economyLawEpistemologyBusinessPhilosophyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article assesses French philosopher Frédéric Gros’ contribution to the analysis of security and suggests ways in which it can help us analyse and critique it. By organising security around distinct, historically defined clusters of meaning, Gros gives us a sense of how deeply embedded security is in the constitution of the self, in totalising theological and political projects and in the foundation and maintenance of the modern political order. Indirectly, Gros’ hypotheses can provide us with the critical resources to respond to and resist the various embodiments of security. Whilst resistance to contemporary modes of risk-management can take the form of aesthetic disruptions and agonistic self-definition, resistance to more traditional forms of security requires the mobilisation of bodies and juridical resources. Building on but also departing from Gros’ genealogy, the article contends that these forms of resistance have to be combined and simultaneous if we are to disrupt security’s multiple power effects.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.322 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture, theory and critique/Culture, theory & critiqueSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207