The Relationship between Scholarly Communication and Science and Technology Studies (STS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies of scholarly communication are based on a socio-technical perspective that has its root in science and technology studies (STS). Despite this close connection, the relationship between scholarly communication and STS is not well understood. Given this gap, this article aims to identify a conceptual link between the two fields, beginning with a review of each field and then examining areas of overlap. Findings reflect the fact that one domain of STS is concerned with the content of scientific knowledge; this is known as the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). This domain is closely related to the processes of scholarly communication, including publishing, searching, collaborating, citing, and writing. The other domain of STS, which focuses on institutions, norms, evaluations, and innovations, is known as sociology of science (or institutional sociology of science). This area is related to scholarly communication structures. Studies of bibliometric evaluation, relationships among disciplines, and innovation and productivity are examples of this connection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".