Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jacques Rancière’s work has offered some insightful and provocative ideas on the nature and meaning ofdemocratic politics. Recently, he has suggested that the Occupy movement presents “the most interesting”example of what he defi nes as radical democratic politics. Using this observation as a starting point, this paperapplies Rancière’s ideas to two recent political events that carried within them a strong Indigenous voice—the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests and the Idle No More (INM) movement. Th e argument putforward is that both the DAPL protests and the INM represent examples of democratic politics as envisionedby Rancière, politics which emerge from a general assumption of equality. RésuméL’oeuvre de Jacques Rancière a contribué quelques idées provocantes sur la nature et le sens du régimepolitique démocratique. Ce dernier a récemment postulé que le mouvement Occupy est un des exemples depolitique démocratique radicale « [des] plus intéressant ». À partir de cette observation, cet article appliqueles idées de Rancière comme grille d’analyse de deux événements politiques récents associée à une forteprésence Autochtone—les manifestations contre le Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) et le mouvement IdleNo More (INM). L’argument avancé est que les manifestations contre le DAPL et le INM constituentdes exemples de politiques démocratiques comme l’envisageait Rancière, soit une politiques issues d’unesupposition générale d’égalité.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".