MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026851959

Fighting Back Against an Imaginary Evil: How studying Jordan Peterson’s Rhetoric Helps Us to Recognize Populism in The Digital Age

2019· article· en· W3026851959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Dueck

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe ImaginaryPopulismRhetoricHegemonyMarxist philosophyAdversaryRhetorical questionMedia studiesSociologyCommunismEpistemologyPhilosophyPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisLawLiteratureArtPsychologyComputer scienceTheologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the age of networked communication, seemingly insignificant fads and idols can become hypnotic magnets for public attention. This paper shows how the Canadian public intellectual Jordan Peterson captures his audience’s imagination by constructing an imaginary enemy out of the academic Left. I argue that Peterson’s rhetorical strategy is based on a shaky foundation and can be analyzed using the theories of populist equivalence outlined by the post-Marxist scholars, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, in their 1985 text Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossingsSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207