MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Populism and Cosmopolitanism

2017· book· en· W2887069073 on OpenAlexaff
James D. Ingram

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPopulism, Right-Wing Movements
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmopolitanismPopulismElitismPoliticsAmbivalencePolitical scienceAestheticsSociologyPhilosophyLawPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Populism and cosmopolitanism are commonly regarded as antitheses, reducing populism to communalism and cosmopolitanism to elitism. This chapter develops a more nuanced view by turning to the early histories of both phenomena. In Diogenes the Cynic, cosmopolitanism’s ancient inventor, it finds evidence less for elitism than for resistance to politics as such. In the populares, populists of the Roman Republic, it finds the origins of a long history of inclusive popular politics. Drawing on a recent debate between Ernesto Laclau and Jacques Rancière, the chapter argues that populism and cosmopolitanism are essentially ambivalent. Insofar as populism can be inclusive or exclusive and cosmopolitanism elitist or popular, the two can overlap, and each can usefully be regarded as a check on the other.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsFrench-language works237,207