Cannibales ante portas: стратегія критичного описання постмодерністів в сучасном у англомовному світі
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is about perception of post modernism by the conservative reading public in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. Post modernist rejection of the progress, nation -state, modern concept of time and author, the leading role of Western civilization etc., tur ned attention to the marginalized groups such as slaves, women, gays (in case of the US also natives and Afro-Americans) and other minorities. The impact of post modernism produced new research agenda and teaching courses generally known as “cultural studi es”. According to post modernists – mostly literary critics and social theorists – history is only a part of the bourgeous society discourse used to suppress subaltern groups. In the 1990s professional historians made an effort to reply on the post moderni st challenge. The author analyses the readers’ reviews on the Keith Windschuttle’s book “The Killing of History” (firstly published in 1994). These reviews were written down on the www.amazon.com web site in 1999-2006. Readers – mostly supporters of the traditional empirical history/conventional national history – criticised post modernism and cultural studies as “the disease” of relativism and scepticism. For the conservative right oriented public history is a fixed set of facts, and revisionism – the substitution of new viewpoints for old – as dangerous action of the left wing intellectuals. Describing post modernists and their writings conservative readers unconsciously used terms concerned with the concepts of triba lism and barbarianism in order to avoid equal discussion with the “promoters of nonsense” speaking in “the barbarous jargon”.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".