Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desde un enfoque teorico influenciado por la obra de Gilles Deleuze, este articulo interroga el papel del afecto en la cultura politica contemporanea. Mediante un analisis de la dimension afectiva del terror, subraya las limitaciones de los procesos de “captura afectiva” que la teoria de la hegemonia considera fundamentales para el establecimiento del poder estatal. Pero en el mismo momento en que presenta el terror como un modo de organizacion que subvierte y cuestiona la logica trascendental de la hegemonia, tambien sugiere, contra Deleuze, que el afecto no puede servir de guia hacia una politica poshegemonica, ya que el mismo Estado tiende a volverse inmanente. La porosidad de la division entre trascendencia e inmanencia, entre razon y afecto, hace posible la constitucion doble del Estado, tanto en las instituciones como en el afecto. El articulo termina argumentando que es esta doble constitucion del Estado lo que la teoria de la poshegemonia tiene que analizar
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".