On the Communicative Geography of Global Sociology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the two distinct communicative logics that inform the institutional geography and normative understanding of global sociology. The globalizing logic imagines a unitary global space that organizes sociological debate; the transnational logic envisions a series of overlapping sociological debates, often organized within a national context that is in the process of cosmopolitan, global, and transnational transformation. We argue that both logics shape communication in the sociological tradition, even if neither project is fully realized. The main challenge to global sociology, particularly in its globalizing form, is the existence of extremely influential spaces of sociological debate in North America and Europe, which reproduce the privileges of the larger and more powerful national associations. At the same time, these large, powerful national associations are becoming increasingly transnationalized, putting centre and periphery into dialogue, if in limited and uneven ways. Résumé. Cet article analyse deux logiques communicatives distinctes qui contribuent à la géographie institutionnelle et à l’approche normative de la sociologie globale. La logique globalisante imagine un espace global unitaire qui organise le débat sociologique; la logique transnationale envisage une série de débats sociologiques imbriqués qui s’organisent souvent dans le cadre d’un contexte national, alors que le contexte national est en train de subir une transformation cosmopolite, globale, et transnationale. Nous soutenons que ces deux logiques déterminent la communication dans la tradition sociologique, même si leurs projets ne se réalisent pas. Le grand défi pour une sociologie globale, surtout sous forme globalisante, semble être l’existence des lieux de débat sociologique extrêmement puissants en Amérique du nord et en Europe, qui, tout en ayant une influence globale, tendent à reproduire les privilèges des associations nationales les plus vastes et les plus puissantes. Pourtant, ces grandes associations nationales puissantes deviennent de plus en plus transnationalisées, de façon à établir un dialogue entre centre et périphérie – mais encore une fois, selon des échanges limités et inégaux.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".