MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255586970 · doi:10.3138/cras.40.3.327

Exorcistes américains : la <i>Heritage Foundation</i>, la guerre culturelle et la sauvegarde du mariage et des valeurs familiales traditionnelles

2010· article· en· W4255586970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frédérick Gagnon, Catherine Goulet-Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsInterpretation (philosophy)Political scienceSoulConventionFoundation (evidence)SociologyIdentity (music)Human sexualityOrder (exchange)HumanitiesLawPhilosophyAestheticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: During the Republican Party's national convention in 1992, Pat Buchanan claimed that a “culture war” was raging in the United States. While Buchanan described this “war” as a “struggle for the soul of America,” we use the culture-war concept to refer to the efforts of various conservative political and social actors trying to protect US traditional values and to “exorcise” the liberal and secular “demons” of the United States. Accordingly, this paper focuses on one of these actors: the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank located in Washington, DC. Performing a postructuralist discursive analysis of various “texts” produced by three scholars from the Heritage about marriage, family values, and sexuality, the paper shows how these scholars strategically rely on certain words and expressions in their research in order to reach two political goals: (1) marginalize liberal views on the issues just mentioned; and (2) discipline Americans by leading them to embrace a traditional/conservative interpretation of US national identity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207