Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remaking Modernity is both a very good book, and a very useful one. The uniformly high quality essays, divided between general reflections on the state of particular areas of knowledge and more tightly focused substantive contri-butions, provide an effective survey of what has become a sprawling sub-field. The introduction and conclusions are themselves major substantive contri-butions providing rigorous, comprehensive and stimulating overviews of intel-lectual change in historical sociology over the last half century or so. But, and this is its most striking achievement, the volume also maintains a strong central argument throughout. Thus one can actually speak in this case of a central thesis sustained by all or at least most of the contributions. That thesis is that ‘a third wave ’ of historical sociology, beginning in the 1990s has now emerged, and the various contributions document that emergence. What then is the third wave of historical sociology? To understand what the editors mean it seems to me useful to explicate the basic principle of periodiza-tion. To simplify somewhat the main factor seems to me the relative influence of
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".