Bibliographic record
Abstract
O ne would assume that for members of a discipline that has placed understanding social change and social order as its original preoccupation, the causes and consequences of globalization are most likely to be one of the prime topics of curiosity among sociologists.Yet, until the 1980s, the topic was not given much attention by sociology or by its sister discipline, anthropology, even though most agree that globalization as a process existed much before the emergence of sociology as a discipline.In all fairness, the term globalization did not even exist in the English language until the 1960s, and only after the 1970s did we begin to see a phenomenal growth in the interest on the topic.So the answer to the above puzzle can be partly found in the label.While sociologists were very much involved in studying multiple processes, institutions and transformations that are now identified as part of the process of globalization [s], only after the 1970s did the label globalization come to be used in relating all these different but interrelated processes.While globalization and its pre-modern forms can be dated back to Columbian explorations, in the post-World War II (WWII) era, facilitated by improvements in transportation, communication and information technologies and through the involvement of transnational corporations, and international organizations, this process has intensified.What possibly made globalization such a phenomenal topic of curiosity, however, was the rise of the neoliberal discourse in the 1980s, which legitimized corporate and state restructuring as a solution to the world economic crisis that took place during the 1970s.Globalization, as an inevitable developmental strategy, with priorities of privatization, deregulation, and removal of obstacles to free movement of capital became the dominant perspective in the neo-liberal era.From regional free trade partnerships (NAFTA) to regional state formations (EU), and global trade agreements (GATT, WTO), many new processes were identified as part of the globalization process.In a short time, globalization captured the imagination of politicians, media, business leaders and social scientists, including sociologists and anthropologists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".