Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in an age of crisis, and politics reflects this. It has become dysfunctional, venal, unpleasant, and social media is a striking example of the decline in politics. Or is it? This book argues that social media is also a seedbed for ambitious political thinking, thinking that contains within it new ideological possibilities. Innovative and attention-grabbing socialist discourses have emerged within social media. They respect the basic conditions upon which political ideas are constructed and have generated discernible projects constructed by groups of authors producing content for their own networks. This book treats these projects as proto-ideologies: intellectual endeavours that assemble concepts to make sense of politics, win arguments, and set out visions of progress against the prevailing dourness at the heart of centrist politics. By analysing socialist conceptual arrangements, the book shows how vital combativeness is to the construction of political ideas. It shows how social media invigorates this and gives ideas a far broader readership than was possible before. Comparing two key socialist proto-ideologies, the book shows how each engages a contentious discussion both against rival ideologies and, more importantly, against each other. It is in the midst of this sibling rivalry that one can identify the limitations of each proto-ideological project.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.413 | 0.221 |
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".