Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once upon a time, Parsons's structural functionalism, depicting society as a community founded on a value consensus, was thought, at least in the United States, to be the dominant theoretical paradigm in the discipline. To be sure, there was always a fair amount of resistance to this view (e.g., C. Wright Mills, Ralf Dahrendorf, Dennis Wrong, and others). But it was not until some time during the 1960s, in part no doubt encouraged by the turmoil resulting from the civil rights, antiwar, and gender protests of the era, that a strong reaction set in against the value consensus approach under the label of conflict theory . Although different approaches have come under this label, they have one main feature in common: conflict theories emphasize the importance of social cleavages generating social conflict that in turn account for political outcomes, including momentary political events, more enduring policies, and long-lasting political institutions. It is useful to distinguish two major strands of conflict theory according to the kinds of social cleavages they emphasize as well as the historical role that conflict plays in them. First, there are the conflict theories more or less directly hailing from the Marxist tradition. These theories focus on the fundamental material interests of different groups as they become intertwined with political forces. These conflicting interests are ultimately based in the mode of production, which creates two main classes, in the case of capitalism, labor and capital.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".