Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems thinking is gradually being rediscovered in the social sciences, and it has been enthusiastically embraced in the biosocial sciences (psychology, neuroscience, human biology) since about the mid-1990s. However, while the systems concept seems unproblematic for scholars in the biosocial sciences, it remains rather problematic for social scientists who have by and large rejected the systems theories of Parsons or Luhmann. Thus while “dynamic systems theory ” or “dynamic systems principles ” play a major role in psychology (Cervone, 2005) and neuroscience (Lewis, 2005), these phrases are almost completely absent in the social science literature. Systems thinking, to the small extent that it is practiced explicitly, can be found under the headings of “chaos theory, ” “complexity theory, ” and “sociocybernetics. ” While phrases such as “symbolic systems ” and “semiotic systems ” suggest that conceptualizing culture in systemic terms is not unusual, the more fundamental question of what cultural systems are and how they can be studied remain problematic (Tilly, 2000). This paper attempts to map out the place of “culture ” in a renewed systemic approach in light of contemporary debates in historical and cultural sociology, social psychology, and cross-cultural pragmatics. The
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 | 0.027 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".