Presidential Address: Historical Thinking, C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures, and a Hope for the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past thirty years, researchers have reconceptualized historical change within and across societies. At the time of the “new social history” in the 1960s and 1970s, scholars may have argued about method and the relative importance of “top-down” and “bottom-up” forces but they generally shared key assumptions about historical change including linearity, singularity, and simplicity. By the 1980s, however, historical thinking was becoming part of a campus-wide reconceptualization of change that emphasizes non-linearity, multiplicity, and complexity. An analysis of the discipline of History illustrates how this reconceptualization is laying the foundation for unprecedented horizontal connections of the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, and biomédical fields. C.P. Snow's description of Two Cultures may still apply to many aspects of university life but the profound rethinking now underway in History and other disciplines points to the possibility of interconnected scholarly cultures.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".