MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111405133 · doi:10.3138/cras-2020-004

Panic, Don’t Panic: Poetry and Affective Politics from the Cold War to Trump

2020· article· en· W3111405133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam Beardsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHannah Arendt's Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCold warIrrational numberPoliticsOpposition (politics)PanicAnxietyMoral panicPoetryPolitical sciencePolitical economySociologyPsychologyCriminologyLiteratureArtLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In both the Cold War and the Trump era, the fear of future threat has provided politicians with a carte blanche for generating anxiety among American citizens. This essay examines how poets in each era responded to the political cultivation of private insecurity, a practice that proliferates the fear, the anxiety, and the weariness that are grounded in the possibility of future threat. For many poets of both the Cold War and Trump eras, political critique lies not in the desire to express rational opposition to irrational policies but in the ability to make tangible the affective consequences of the cultivation of national insecurity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicHannah Arendt's Political PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207