MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301319916 · doi:10.25071/1913-5874/37358

Introduction: (De) Fatalizing the Present

2011· article· en· W4301319916 on OpenAlexaff
Anna M. Agathangelou

Bibliographic record

VenueInTensions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsFocus (optics)Object (grammar)Space (punctuation)SociologyEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsAestheticsPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue, (De) Fatalizing the Present and Creating Radical Alternatives, brings critical theorists, artists, and poets together to engage systematically the temporal structure of the relationship of politics and violence with a focus on the tensions between slavery and colonization. These theorists show that disrupting dominant theorizations and their generated contingent affects begins with exposing the epistemologies and methods that call for a monitoring of each other’s activities in the aggregate without taking into account the current politico-ontologico-structural condition of world politics, inscribing the slave condition as a primary one, while also continually and constantly changing. This special issue expands the postcolonial critique that challenges the idea of the “West” and the “Global North” as primary analytical sites and their citizens the agents of politics against which everybody else is to be measured. Such critiques open up the space for us to take time as the primary object of focus in our analyses of the global, problems in world politics, ethics, and possible expressions of revolutionary practices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTensionsSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207