“Only tall because somebody’s on their knees”: distrust, power, and the pursuit of invulnerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What drives the chronic distrust of some men towards women on the topic of gendered sexual violence and harassment? What motivates the persistent distrust of some White people towards Black, Indigenous, and other people of color on the topic of police brutality? I argue that what drives/motivates these cases of ‘top-down’ distrust – at least in part – is an experience of a particular sort of vulnerability: ‘constitutive vulnerability.’ On my account, top-down distrust is often a morally pernicious response to constitutive vulnerability by those who are dominantly situated in a given power relation. This top-down distrust in turn serves to secure – or attempts to secure – the dominant subject’s sense of self against destabilizing identity-threats from ‘below.’ Such a formulation of distrust contributes to existing literature by highlighting not only a possible psychological function or benefit to distrust in the context of power asymmetries, but also offers a new perspective as to why some types of distrust may be especially resistant to counter-evidence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".