Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essays collected in this issue emerged out of the Canadian Association for American Studies conference held in Winnipeg in October 2003. The conference’s program was organized around the topics ‘‘Authenticity and Contention’’ because, at the time of issuing the call for papers, we could not help but recognize the renewed urgency these notions had taken on following the United States government’s response to the events of September 11, 2001. The declaration of a war on terrorism, the founding of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the first Patriot Act, the identifying of a so-called ‘‘axis of evil,’’ and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had already registered a dramatic shift in the American government’s approach towards both its geopolitical role in the world and the regulation and monitoring of its own population. Concerns about national security demanded more intensive internal scrutiny of the origins, identities, and beliefs of American citizens, landed immigrants, and visitors, while potential external threats to the United States were identified as targets for pre-emptive aggression. In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and throughout the planning and execution of the military actions that followed, the legitimacy of certain models of national citizenship and political dissent were measured against a coercive ideal of patriotism, which mobilized appeals to an authentically American identity or ‘‘American way of life’’ in order to suppress or disqualify the possibility of critical debate. Any view contesting the policies of the White House administration left itself open to the charge of being inherently ‘‘un-American,’’ or even ‘‘anti-American.’’
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.244 | 0.108 |
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".