MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403087003 · doi:10.1215/21599785-11247009

History in an Unfamiliar Key

2024· article· en· W4403087003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph D. Bryan

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of the Present · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)PsychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the turn of the century, historians have focused on the diverse representations of the past, recognizing that traditional spaces (e.g., museums, statuary, and public commemorations) no longer have a monopoly on the public dissemination of history. This article explores representations of the past from an unusual place: punk rock music and the Canadian band Propagandhi (1986–present). It asks: Can we read history through punk rock? If so, what do we learn? Punks’ treatment of the past should be integrated into how we evaluate public consumption of history. While Propagandhi does not create new knowledge, their music acts as an alternative historical epistemology that tracks alongside professional historians. This article explains how punks have integrated historical material similar to the aesthetics used in punk zines, fashions, and record designs. It then analyzes Propagandhi’s focus on hypocrisy in punk communities through a historical framework, their perception of the early modern European epistemological origins of animal abuse, and their performance of a social history that magnifies the experiences of marginalized peoples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of the PresentSame topicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality StudiesFrench-language works237,207