MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404752291 · doi:10.1177/1354067x241297305

The rhetoric of ideological transgression: History and psychological language in the archives of the Securitate

2024· article· en· W4404752291 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Plămădeală, Cristian Tileagă

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture & Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricMarine transgressionIdeologyAestheticsSociologyPsychoanalysisLiteraturePsychologyHistoryLinguisticsPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyLawGeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a discursive and sociocultural approach to the rhetoric of ideological transgression in the archives of the Securitate (the infamous Romanian communist secret police) during the Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (1948–65) and Nicolae Ceaușescu (1965–89) periods. First, we explore Securitate ’s discursive practices of defining and responding to ideological transgression and antagonism. We examine the case of two suspected legionaries (Constantin Vaman and Petru Mureșan) to illustrate how the Securitate chose to catalogue and describe those it considered prototypical ideological antagonists. We look at the language and categories used in Securitate files, surveillance operative reports, and instructional manuals to describe people the communist state deemed ‘enemies of the state.’ The first part of the paper offers a brief historical overview of the Securitate and its role in quelling opposition and dissent. We then highlight the contribution of discursive psychology to the analysis of discursive practices of a professional community in the service of state power as a cultural form of communication. Finally, we show how psychological language is strategically mobilized to define a particular class of ideologically transgressive behavior in Securitate ’s surveillance apparatus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueCulture & PsychologySame topicIntelligence, Security, War StrategyFrench-language works237,207