MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212104888 · doi:10.3138/cras-2021-001

Trump’s Base! You Can Say That Again!! An Optimistic Deconstruction of Base Politics

2021· article· en· W3212104888 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bradley D. Clissold

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconstruction (building)PoliticsRhetorical questionSociologyBase (topology)NarrativeAestheticsOffensiveMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyLiteratureArtManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An expansion of a presentation given at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for American Studies in Montreal in 2019, prior to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 US election, this paper playfully challenges the rhetorical idea of Donald Trump’s base political support (as unconditional and foundational) through Derridean-styled deconstruction, a line of critical inquiry that repeatedly keeps riffing and looping back on itself to undermine the authority and foundations of base support by playing with the homophonic significations of base/bass/ baise in an assortment of psychosexual, pop-cultural, and satirically philosophical ways.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.039
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207