MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402709558 · doi:10.62477/jkmp.v24i3.442

America Has Fallen: Critical Race Theory & Low-Intensity Conflict

2024· article· en· W4402709558 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Biff Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementU.S. Department of Homeland Security
KeywordsCritical race theoryRace (biology)Intensity (physics)Critical theorySociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesLawPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to enlighten the business community on socio-political theory, specifically Critical Theory (CT) and Critical Race Theory (CRT), which evolved from Marxist principles. While CT focuses on economics, CRT applies a Marxist lens to race, gender, and intersectionality. The research discussion transitions from theory to application of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) as defined by U.S. military doctrine. LIC Phase 1 involves organizing, educating, and infiltrating government; Phase 2 includes initiating low level violence and propaganda, expanding to insurrection and guerrilla attacks, and consolidating power through increased attacks and political activities. With Phases 1 and 2 completed, Phase 3 was initiated with an attempted assassination of former President Trump, and is exacerbated by unchecked immigration of military-aged men and fentanyl proliferation. This study advocates for counter-insurgency measures and emphasizes the urgent need for politicians to uphold their constitutional oaths and safeguard the nation.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

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 studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.372
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Knowledge Management and PracticeSame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207