Social Challenges in the 21st Century The Krakow Sociologists' Debate, September 3, 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Totalitarianism, the threat of total annihilation, science in the service of crime, famine and poverty. But also intensive scientific and technological progress, spectacular advancements of the medical sciences, emerging global civilisation, the culture of information science. The 20th century. So difficult to evaluate unambiguously: fascinating and intriguing on the one hand, terrifying, tragic and casting serious doubt on the meaningfulness of human progress on the other hand. This, I think, is why the 1999 fin de siecle is so fraught with ambivalence. Why it evokes hope, optimism and curiosity of what the new times will bring and resounds with catastrophic, fatalistic and pessimistic tones, full of fear and apprehension. At such a time it is hard not to ask questions which may seem trivial and simple but which, after all, are the very quintessence of the human fears at the time of transition. With what heritage shall we enter the new era? With what burdens? Shall we be able to avoid the mistakes of the past? What are the dilemmas of the turn of the century and with what challenges does this special time present humankind? Are we able to foresee the dangers which await us in this century to come and will we be able to cope with the problems it brings? The sociologists who took part in this debate tried to answer these questions and many others besides. The debate was a part of a two-day session organised by the International Sociological Association (ISA) Program Committee. The purpose of the session was to identify and formulate the topics to be discussed at the 151 World Congress of Sociology in Brisbane, 2002. Scholars from all continents filled the ancient walls of the Collegium Maius: Margaret Archer, University of Warwick, Jeffrey C. Alexander, UCLA, Los Angeles, Marcel Fournier, University of Montreal, Nilufer Gole, Bogazici
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".