MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380675090 · doi:10.1080/27671127.2023.2222794

Reactive Memories of 1776

2023· article· en· W4380675090 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Davis, Richard Branscomb

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication and Democracy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricMythologyWhite supremacyPoliticsState (computer science)ScholarshipPrerogativeCollective memoryRhetorical questionStatus quoPolitical scienceLawSociologyHistoryArtTheologyLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we situate the riot at the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021, within the longer history of white-led race riots in the United States, as both state and vigilante actors have twisted the memory of that history toward maintaining an antidemocratic and racist status quo. Motivating such riotous eruptions is what we call reactive memory in reference to the formation of historical mythologies that valorize a “return” to a whitewashed past in response to perceived threats against socioracial domination in the present. We contribute to rhetoric and communication scholarship on memory and far-right nation-building by examining the mobilization of reactive memory in “1776” discourses and the rhetoric of extremist paramilitary groups. In doing so, we demonstrate how reactive memory is conjured to justify the right’s saturation in white supremacy and antidemocratic intervention, including and especially riotous violence – not because its adherents have no other rhetorical recourse in the political state of affairs, but because they situate political violence to be their historically sanctioned prerogative.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication and DemocracySame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207