MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249567913 · doi:10.46692/9781529208900.009

The Populist Challenge to Constitutional Citizenship: The Closing of Discursive Space

2020· other· en· W4249567913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPopulism, Right-Wing Movements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosing (real estate)CitizenshipSpace (punctuation)Political sciencePolitical economyLaw and economicsSociologyLawPhilosophyLinguisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This chapter presents reflections on how constitutional citizenship is challenged by the practice of populist politics. It includes, among other examples, a short exposition of the remarkable explosion of populist politics in the UK, its move from the fringes to the mainstream and its impact on issues of citizenship, in particular in the context of the referendum on leaving the EU. This discussion is framed by further case studies focused on Canada, the US, Hungary and India. Following the apparent triumph of liberal and constitutional democracy in the wake of the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, alongside the rise of human rights as both ideological framework and legal practice since the Second World War, some were inclined to suggest that ‘history’ had somehow ended, because the last ideological alternatives to liberalism and capitalism had been eliminated. Indeed, capitalism does seem to have triumphed (for now), but liberalism is not in such good health 30 years after the end of communism. Nationalism, and associated ideologies, have hardly disappeared, and now seem to live on, embedded within many ostensibly liberal democratic constitutional settlements. Astute commentators noticed this rather quickly. In the second decade of the 21st century, many aspects of nationalism have become central topics of political commentary, along with the discourse of ‘populism’, which seems to have become predominant, not just in authoritarian polities, or in Latin American countries with personalized presidential systems and high levels of socioeconomic inequality, but in more or less every polity, including those with well embedded parliamentary systems and liberal constitutional frameworks incorporating multiple checks and balances. We now live, many people have claimed, in an era of populism, or, as it is sometimes called ‘the new populism’. This is also reflected by the extended discussions of populism we can find in the media. However, the controversial topic of populism covers a much wider range of issues than can be discussed in this chapter. It is ‘modish’ to describe more or less any sort of invocation of ‘the people’ within political discourse as being a manifestation of ‘populism’ (Walker 2019b).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsFrench-language works237,207