The Emergence of Milgram's Bureaucratic Machine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on documents from Yale University, this article advances new sociological insights on Milgram's experiments, which bolster and extend Russell and Gregory's largely psychological explanation. From behind‐the‐scenes, Milgram's experiments are viewed as an ideologically driven, inherently coercive, and goal‐orientated bureaucratic process. The individual links within this organisational chain included Milgram (project manager), Yale University (institutional support), the National Science Foundation (funding), Milgram's research team (the actors), ending with the final link, the “shock”‐inflicting participants. Analysis illustrates how the division of labour inherent within this bureaucratic process facilitated Milgram's high completion rates because when highly stressed participants inflicted the most intense shocks, every link in the chain had the opportunity to displace or diffuse personal responsibility for their actually or, for the participants, seemingly harmful contributions. This analysis is consistent with Durkheim's insistence that to better understand the behavior of individuals, the social—and therefore sociological—context must also be considered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it