Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a time, ‘American authoritarianism’ was considered an oxymoron; I argue that it has always been a national fairytale. Tracking increased ingroup-outgroup political affinity, antipathy, and affective polarization, this paper provides a scoping review of American authoritarianism since the late nineteenth century. I provide abbreviated cases analyses for the Reconstruction and Jim Crow authoritarian regimes, George Bush Jr.’s ‘War on Terror’, and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidency as authoritarianism personified. These cases underscore the growing propensity for authoritarianism in the post-Trump era. As a result, this research fills gaps in extant political and psychological scholarship, focusing on affinity, antipathy, and affective polarization in contemporary U.S. political culture. By using three elements of Adorno et al.’s (1950) nine-point scale to classify authoritarian personalities, this paper situates its analysis within Americans’ increasing submission to an acknowledged authority, aggression towards perceived outgroup members, and their belief in simple answers and polemics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".