MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007130504 · doi:10.1177/0020715205059204

Is the Pace of Social Change Accelerating?

2005· article· en· W2007130504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas K. Rudel, Linda Hooper

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceSocial changeEliteDevelopment economicsIndustrialisationPoliticsPolitical scienceFertilityPolitical economySociologyEconomic growthEconomic geographyEconomicsGeographyPopulationLawDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentators frequently observe that the pace of social change accelerated during the 20th century. Processes of industrialization, demographic change, and human-induced environmental change all occurred more rapidly at the end of the century than they did at the beginning. While claims about accelerating social change abound, few studies attempt to explain it. This article tries to do so through a quantitative analysis of the changing pace of fertility declines over the past two centuries. It outlines two possible explanations for the acceleration: a social integration thesis which emphasizes our growing interconnectivity; and a ‘latecomer effect’ which attributes the accelerated processes to political efforts by elites in poorer countries who want to ‘catch up’ with more affluent countries. An empirical analysis of fertility declines provides support for both explanations. Increased social integration through the spread of common languages may have facilitated the transmission of new norms about fertility, and the creation of elite initiated family planning programs after the Second World War expanded access to contraceptives.!

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207