MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087507171 · doi:10.1177/0010414020957692

The Politics of Vigilantism

2020· article· en· W3087507171 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersTinker FoundationYale University
KeywordsOperationalizationConceptualizationPoliticsPunishment (psychology)Power (physics)State (computer science)SociologyPolitical scienceCriminologyEpistemologySocial psychologyLawPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vigilantism is theoretically and empirically important for political science, because it is closely related to core concepts like power, order, state-building, and collective action. Yet although political scientists are increasingly interested in vigilantism, our discipline has never developed a sustained, cumulative research agenda on vigilantism. I argue this is largely because existing definitions of vigilantism are contradictory, tautological, and not easily operationalized. This article cuts through the conceptual muddle, equipping and motivating political scientists to study vigilantism. First, I define vigilantism as the extralegal prevention, investigation, or punishment of offenses. Next, I provide a crisp conceptualization of vigilantism, and I situate vigilantism in relation to other concepts in political science. I conclude by addressing methodological and ethical issues in the study of vigilantism.

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.163 · 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