Distorted Universality — Internationalization and its Implications for the Epistemological Foundations of the Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the articulation between the common core of the discipline and its local manifestations has become increasingly problematic. It might seem paradoxical that calls for more local sociologies appear at the very time of globalization. However, I argue that this double move — the internationalization of the scholarly community on the one hand and the localization of specific claims on the other — is not as ironic as it first appears. On the contrary, it has its foundations in the very history of the discipline, in the realities of its worldwide spreading, and in the forms of its international constitution that are marked by hierarchies and inequalities, especially with regard to South-North-relations. Résumé. Récemment, l’articulation entre le corpus commun de la discipline d’un côté et ses manifestations locales de l’autre côté se trouve remise en question. Il peut paraître paradoxal que les revendications de sociologies plus « locales » émergent simultanément au processus de mondialisation. Toutefois, j’argumenterai que ce double mouvement vers l’internationalisation de la communauté scientifique d’un côté, et la localisation de ses réalisations spécifiques de l’autre côté, n’est pas aussi ironique que cela puisse paraître à première vue. Au contraire, il semble que ces développements récents trouvent leur origine dans l’histoire même de la discipline, dans les réalités de son expansion globale et dans les formes de sa constitution internationale qui sont marquées par des hiérarchies et des inégalités profondes, surtout en ce qui concerne les relations Sud-Nord.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".