Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is a tribute to the relevance of the sociology of childhood, and an acknowledgement of the fruitfulness of a historical sociology of developmental thinking. It argues forcefully that the latter became the predominant way of thinking and acting with relation to the child in western societies and, certainly, beyond. The analysis arises from a critical stance with regard to the positions provided by both psychology's perspectives and socialization enquiries. Arriving at the end of our journey in the historical sociology of developmental thinking, the main line of argument of this volume must be reasserted. The final remarks, however, will assume that the outcomes derived from developmental thinking's leading position can arguably be an overture to a purposeful shift in the childhood collective. The argument In the course of the analysis, I maintained that childhood is a crucial condition for sociological theory to be as general – a totality – and constructive as possible. The point of departure relates to the scientific investigation of children which started to observe, measure, weigh and describe them: their social inscription was hence provided largely by recording devices such as graphs, charts and tabulations. Along the way it is suggested that a novel child figure is carried forward by the activity of measurement, classification and codification via diverse social technologies working to put into operation standardized variables and developmental benchmarks for monitoring children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.054 |
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".