Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Although the sociological tradition in Russia reaches back to the late 19th century and is historically linked with western European sociological traditions, it is only since the end of the 1980s that contemporary Russian sociology has begun to blossom again and take tangible shape. This article elaborates the characteristic role that Russian sociology has played, now plays, and could possibly play in “globalizing sociology.” An integrative perspective or synthetic approach to knowledge most suitably defines the Russian tradition, placing sociology creatively between the humanities and natural sciences. This is partly due to the cultural and geographic diversity of a nation that crosses borders between east and west. Significant figures in the history of Russian sociology such as Pitirim Sorokin and Maxim Kovalevsky show how both importing and exporting sociological ideas constitute globalization, as well as the importance of traveling outside of one’s home nation to discover the views of other civil societies. The article gives an overview of problems, resources, and recent events in Russian sociology, highlighting lessons from Russia’s experience in the transition to democracy and from state to market. These two transitions pose significant challenges to academic autonomy for professional sociology that are widely shared in the discipline outside the Big Four of the United States, Britain, Germany, and France, further suggesting the potential importance of the Russian experience for globalizing sociology. Résumé. Bien que la tradition sociologique en Russie ait une histoire remontant à la fin du 19ième siècle et qu’elle soit historiquement liée aux traditions sociologiques d’Europe occidentale, c’est seulement depuis la fin des années 1980 que la sociologie russe contemporaine a commencé à se développer à nouveau et à prendre forme. Cet article traite du rôle caractéristique que la sociologie russe a joué, continue à jouer et pourrait probablement jouer dans le futur en termes de perspectives pour la ‘sociologie globale’. La tradition russe se définit le plus convenablement par une perspective intégrative ou une approche synthétique à la connaissance qui place la sociologie entre les sciences humaines et les sciences naturelles. Ceci est partiellement dû à la diversité culturelle et géographique d’une nation qui a des frontières avec l’Occident et l’Orient. L’étude de figures significatives de l’histoire de la sociologie russe tels Pitirim Sorokin et Maxime Kovalevsky montre comment l’importation et l’exportation des idées sociologiques constituent un élément de mondialisation. Mais, dans une telle étude, il faut galement s’attarder à l’importance du déplacement en dehors de sa nation d’origine à fin de découvrir les vues d’autres sociétés civiles. L’article donne une vue d’ensemble des problèmes réels, des ressources et des événements récents dans la sociologie russe. Il insiste également sur leçons de l’expérience de la Russie, un pays qui a connu une transition à la démocratie et au marché. Pour la sociologie professionnelle, ces deux transitions posent des défis significatifs à l’autonomie universitaire qui sont largement partagés dans la discipline en dehors des quatre grands que sont les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Allemagne et la France. L’expérience de la sociologie russe pour la mondialisation de la sociologie est doncpotentiellement importante.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".