Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, forms of state power and the relations between the state and society have been apprehended in terms of both their complexity and their potential fluidity. The most recent studies establish a point of convergence, highlighting transformations in frontiers of power; the complexity of the state and the ambivalent nature of its specific manifestations; and the porosity and mobility of national, social, and political boundaries and social formations, whatever their origins. Likewise, these works underscore the plurality of identities and the fact that seemingly contradictory affiliations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. While the state-society opposition still structures prevailing modes of analysis in centers of power, and most notably in the heart of world financial institutions and the “international community,” it is nonetheless recognized among scholars as being reductionist and hence of little utility in efforts to outline actual modalities of power. To reiterate Joel Migdal, “The state's being simultaneously a part of society and apart from society” (Introduction) is now a generally accepted axiom. The introduction to this book and the chapters that follow all confirm this thought: The plurality of affiliations are not systematically opposed, since they intersect and articulate with one another, and the fluidity of socio-political frontiers makes questions about the centrality or marginality of the state futile, if not sterile. The chapters herein avoid this impasse, inquiring instead into the ways in which we can conceptualize and understand the multiple nature of the logics of power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.168 | 0.055 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".