MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041027857 · doi:10.1080/09557571.2020.1789558

Clement to the Corinthians (on climate change?): sojourning as a theologico-political alternative to environmental emergency rhetoric

2020· article· en· W3041027857 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael P. A. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Review of International Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhetoricPoliticsPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsTheologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After decades of critical scholarship calling attention to the dangers of emergency powers, many critical theorists and political activists are now turning to those same tools to combat climate change. The Climate Emergency Declaration movement advocates directly for the declaration of political states of emergency in jurisdictions across the globe. This article intervenes to recall the danger of emergency powers, with particular attention paid to the crucial role played by the political state of emergency (originally l’etat de siege fictif) in nineteenth-century France in the development of emergency power doctrine and twentieth-century authoritarian sovereignty. The second half of the article looks for an alternative, arguing that the radical and emancipatory response to the threat of climate change ought to be grounded in a political theology of ‘sojourning’, rather than the exception, drawing on the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, as well as the commentary on that letter by Giorgio Agamben. This theologico-political response to the ethics of climate change furthers the scholarly debate on political theology and International Relations theory by engaging one of the crucial challenges of the twenty-first century and by developing a potential model for theological discussions of ethical problems beyond religious moralising.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Review of International AffairsSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207