Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 20, 2001, George W. Bush announced the creation of the Office of Homeland Security, invoking intimate longings for a secure and familial polity in response to the trauma of 9/11. When criticized for not thanking Canada for crisis support in this speech, Bush responded, “I didn&s;t necessarily think it was important to praise a brother; after all, we&s;re talking about family.” Colin Powell, writing about U.S. foreign policy and multilateral relations, affirmed that the world need not become multipolar “because there need be no poles among a family of nations that shares basic values” ( Powell 2004 ). Familial metaphors of nationhood have a long history, and the United States is certainly not the first to invoke the image of homeland. But historically, a familial imaginary has not been a prominent feature of U.S. nationalist discourse. Yet this framing has found meaning in the crisis of the contemporary War on Terror. Moreover, just as metaphors of family are more frequently being deployed in U.S. political discourse, public policy is also increasingly geared toward “marriage promotion” and “safe and stable families” and away from any form of social and sexual alternative. Since the initiation of the “War on Terror,” the private family stands at the center of U.S. domestic and foreign policy, with the “failure” of the family understood as a cause of suffering, misery, disease, and even terrorism, particularly in racialized communities across the nation and around the world.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".