MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111966571 · doi:10.3138/cras-2020-003

Imagining Imperial Futures: Colonization as the Solution for Urban Uncertainty in <i>Battlestar Galactica</i>

2020· article· en· W3111966571 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. Leigh McKagen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative Fiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractNarrativeHumanitySurvivabilityColonialismColonizationSeries (stratigraphy)HistorySociologyEconomicsLiteraturePolitical scienceArchaeologyComputer scienceLawArtFinancial economicsGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, I argue that the American science fiction television series Battlestar Galactica (2003–2009) reflects uncertainty over survival in the urban present and in the near future, especially how humanity might survive in a closed system with no outside aid or resources. The Colonial Fleet highlights anxieties of contemporary cities driven to the edge of survivability by disaster. Through an examination of the fleet formation throughout the series—and of its survival in the series’ conclusion—I argue that Euro-American colonization provides ultimate salvation, soothing the uncertainty present throughout the series narrative, thus presenting an image of a very certain imperial future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.038
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicUtopian, Dystopian, and Speculative FictionFrench-language works237,207