Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contested Territory presents a critical, non-sovereign theory of territorial rights capable of responding to border-defying global crises such as land dispossession, mass migration, and environmental depredation. Statist theorists have attempted to mitigate these crises within the framework of territorial sovereignty, but have not grasped how this crumbling system causes the problems they seek to solve. Others, pitting cosmopolitanism against sovereignty, have turned away from territoriality, thus ignoring the geographical dimensions of freedom. The need for a radical shift in theorizing territory is urgent. This book embarks on that shift and argues, against the mainstream view, that it is possible to theorize democracy within a framework of territorial non-sovereignty. In an effort to loosen the grip of sovereignty and broaden our territorial imagination, Contested Territory resuscitates a long-suppressed tradition in the history of political thought: the tradition of theorizing contested territory. The theorists of contested territory—anarchists, exiles, federationists, cosmopolitans, indigenous theorists, and so on—do not view the absence of sovereignty over land as a problem, and instead find democratic potential in overlapping rule. Building on such alternatives, this book charts normative foundations for a cosmopolitan, democratic theory of territory and land politics. Through a critical engagement with the thought of Hannah Arendt, it grounds democratic land governance in the land-based, non-sovereign practices of world-building. Contested Territory concludes that is both possible and desirable to decouple democracy and territorial sovereignty, and that by doing so we can better respond to the border-defying crises of our age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.003 |
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".