Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anti‐Security is a political project seeking to foster critical theoretical and empirical interventions into existing security discourses. An edited book by the same title (Neocleous & Rigakos 2011) helped coalesce an emerging strand of radical scholarship under the theme in 2011. An active Anti‐Security studies group organized workshops and a recent stream at the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control in 2012. Anti‐Security is purportedly not a theory or a framework, but a discursive space where critical scholars and activists can discuss security without creating more security intelligence. According to its proponents, it is a space where security is not taken for granted, or is not seen as a positive end in itself. Anti‐Security thus offers the flexibility for anyone from any disciplinary frame interested in a materialist critique of security to contribute to the project (Manolov 2012). The main purpose of the Anti‐Security project is to stimulate a coherent and penetrating way of destabilizing the dominant security discourse, to provide an opening for resuscitating security's own inherent contradictions, and to make those transparent.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".