Review of: "Understanding the 2024 Summer Riots in the UK: Three Case Studies"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work is very comprehensive.However, it is tedious to read.Descriptions are provided in painstaking detail, the value of which is debatable for an academic audience.This is not supposed to be a police report.Different sources have been compiled, yet it's often unclear which material is used to describe what.Discussion started on page 22.Although acknowledged, the lack of interviews with anti-immigrant participants is a major weakness of the work.We need to understand their motivations from their perspective, in their own words.The discussion lacks depth and contextualization (other than the comparison with the 2011 riots, which is apt) and could have better illustrated the multiculturalism crisis that the UK experiences.Writings from Roger Scruton and Leo McKinstry, for example, could have been leveraged.Branding the participants as 'racists' and 'islamophobic' seems like a gross, naive oversimpli cation at best.The authors should meditate on the following citation by Edgar Quinet: ''Le vritable exil n'est pas d'tre arrach de son pays, c'est d'y vivre et de n'y plus rien trouver de ce qui le faisait aimer." ("True exile is not being torn from one's country, it is living there and no longer nding anything there that made one love it.")
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".