Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of “national identity” is one of the most popular constructs linking political theory and policy agents’ requests intended to maintain socio-political order in general, and to legitimize policy in particular. This aspect of legitimacy as explored through the national identity issue engages our attention in this review. The authors explore this aspect as applied to the problem of classical political order, focusing on state capacities and policymaking, accompanied rhetorically by a national identity discourse and based on common values, beliefs, and models of behavior. The review starts from a skepticism towards state capabilities and its claim to monopolize reproduction of a socio-political order which appeals to a volatile idea of a “nation.” This is an obvious case for political philosophy and the social sciences, and also a strong example to illustrate the complexities that states face in the “colonizing” of a public sphere. The complexities are particularly expressed in a growing uncertainty of all statutes of identity-politics agents. The article emphasizes that precisely because of the “colonization” strategy, a “nation” eludes a state that loses its reference points such as “order” or “stability.” The authors conclude that a policy of such a style described above will always be emasculated and fail to provide any kind of social integration.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".