Bibliographic record
Abstract
JOHN C. WALSH and Steven High find in their recent research note on Rethinking the Concept of Community that community seems to occupy an omnipresent but ambiguous place in the narrative structure of historians. To rectify this and to stimulate debate, they present a model of three essential aspects to community: interaction, imagination, and process. The construction of communities is a social process, reproduced in the interactions of social networks, and represented by signs and symbols in the imaginings of individuals internal and external to the community. This element of imagination can be linked to Benedict Andersons notion of the nation as an imagined political community. Although the nation is larger than a single physical community and thus all its members cannot be known to each other, it is still conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship regardless of its inequities and hierarchies. This vision of a shared group is necessarily imagined and is defined not by its actual correlation to any real group identifiers, but by the style in which it is imagined. This definition of community can be extended to all types of groups that possess a sense of shared identity and history based on material or social constructs such as geography, ethnicity, or gender. Such a communitys collective values, beliefs, and practices are expressed through the creation and retention of particular narratives about the past: its social memory. The modern scholar most credited with beginning the study of social memory is Maurice Halbwachs, whose notion of the collective memory is
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".