MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970398748 · doi:10.1057/eps.2013.48

Are Quantitative Research Methods to Blame for a Growing Irrelevance of Political Science? A Rejoinder to John Trent

2014· article· en· W1970398748 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Political Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Science Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllegationNormativeInterpretation (philosophy)PoliticsEpistemologyBlamePolitical philosophySociologyComparative politicsPhilosophy of scienceOrder (exchange)Political scienceLawEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Is political science out of step with the world?’ This question, raised by John E. Trent in a recent issue, is part of a recurring debate about the development of our discipline. In that article, and in a subsequent book with his colleague Michael Stein, John Trent blames adherents of the ‘scientific method’ for political science’s growing irrelevance. We challenge this claim by arguing that Trent falls back on outdated polarities between ‘objective and normative’, and ‘explanation and interpretation’, in order to justify his allegation. We argue for the need to review our methods continuously, rather than dig up a fruitless and biased division between qualitative and quantitative approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.195
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.195
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it