Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Paul Patton Co-Editor and William Chaloupka Co-Editor With this issue we return to questions about the nature of power and the forms of resistance to it. The leading articles address some of the sites and possible dimensions of resistance to contemporary Imperial power. Diane Enns draws upon Foucault and Agamben in order to pose a question that is as at once sensitive as it is horrifying: how is it possible that men and women, adults and children, become suicide bombers? She argues that, even as these thinkers provide us with some elements of an answer to this question, the existence of such ‘human explosives’ exposes lacunae in both Foucault’s analyses of power and resistance and Agamben’s analyses of limit-figures of the biopolitical body. Ian Angus draws upon a rich minoritarian tradition of Canadian social and political thought in order to contest certain key assumptions of Hardt and Negri’s theorisation of Empire and to argue that a politics of place provides one source of resistance to global neo-liberal government. Against the tendency to embrace the logic of capital and dismiss all forms of reterritorialization as reactive and reactionary, he points to some of the ways in which geographical borders set limits to Empire and enable inventive forms of political and cultural reterritorialization. Richard Smith draws upon Jean Epstein’s natural philosophy of cinema and William Connolly’s Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed in order to argue for a new kind of cinematic political philosophy. Taking up Connolly’s insistence that democratic political theory must come to terms with the speed of contemporary life, Smith argues that his advocacy of a decentred cosmopolitanism might be productively applied to the pervasive phenomena of contemporary screen culture. He suggests that a cosmopolitanism based on cinematic experimentalism might provide a means to link the natural and the political philosophy of film. In the reviews section William E. Connolly reviews Antonio Damasio, Looking For Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow And The Feeling Brain and Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy And The Making Of Modernity, 1650-1750. David Owen reviews Bonnie Honig, Democracy and the Foreigner. Diana Coole reviews Wendy Brown, Politics Out of History. Joel Olson reviews Catherine A. Holland, The Body Politic: Foundings, Citizenship, and Difference in the American Political Imagination. Copyright © 2004, Diane Enns and The Johns Hopkins University Press
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.294 | 0.187 |
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".