Bibliographic record
Abstract
[American decline?] As the power of the United States expands in the world, predictions of the country’s decline have also multiplied over the past half-century. For every crisis in the global economic and political system, they return in tandem. But are the doomsayers right, is the star of the American empire really in decline? In his assessment of the “declinism debate”, Marco d’Eramo balances the strengths of America’s novel mode of domination – military, financial, digital, and diplomatic – against growing domestic strains caused by an outdated political system and an increasingly dependent and disillusioned working class in the wake of globalization. In a world where the United States dictates the terms to the point that we “would remain Americans without America”, the country is well on its way to becoming the first and only empire in history where its own citizens are worse off than the subject citizens of many allied countries. Publication history: Translation of the article “L’eterno ritorno del declino americano” in MicroMega , issue 1 (2022), from the revised English version “American decline?” in New Left Review , issue 135 (2022). (Published 20 June 2024) Citation: d’Eramo, Marco (2024) “Amerikansk försvagning?”, in Arkiv. Tidskrift för samhällsanalys , issue 17, pp. 7–26. https://doi.org/10.13068/2000-6217.17.1
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".