MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200412001 · doi:10.47850/rl.2021.2.4.124-143

COMPARATIVE CONCEPTOLOGY OF POWER AND RESISTANCE USING GOOGLE NGRAM BOOKS

2021· article· en· W4200412001 on OpenAlexaff
Антон Олейник

Bibliographic record

VenueRespublica literaria · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural, Linguistic, Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernmentalityPower (physics)Government (linguistics)Discourse analysisFace (sociological concept)Key (lock)SociologyPerspective (graphical)Resistance (ecology)Media studiesSocial scienceLinguisticsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawArtificial intelligenceComputer securityPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article discusses the evolution of key concepts referring to governmentality in comparative perspective. The Russian discourse on government and power is compared with the Western discourse. The Google Books Ngram Viewer databank covering the period from 1800 to 2019 is used as a source of information. This databank contains more than 5% of all published books. The proposed discourse analysis suggests that the Russian and Western discourses have some elective affinity: in both cases there is little room for truth telling and whistle-blowers face significant risk.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespublica literariaSame topicCultural, Linguistic, Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207