Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay takes its cue from Judith Butler’s question about “what forms of education are necessary for democracy to work” in the face of the “double bind” created when “the neoliberal matrix of valuation combines with the anti-intellectual conservatism” of our day, especially in the context of the more extreme threat to democracy epitomized by the 6 January insurrection. It focuses, in particular, on the ways that a seminar on Romantic print culture that I have taught in slightly different ways for the past several years is animated by these issues and has provided an important historical context for working through questions about the ways that the humanities can contribute to the project of renewing a broader commitment both to critical thinking, which reasserts the authority of rational argument based on evidence, scientific or otherwise, and to the power of the imagination, which can envision the kinds of community that may be our best defence against this all-on assault on democracy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".