MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020013758 · doi:10.1177/14687950122232486

Was Max Weber a Selectionist in Spite of Himself?

2001· article· en· W2020013758 on OpenAlex
W. G. Runciman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Classical Sociology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWeber, Simmel, Sociological Theory
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarwinismProtestant work ethicEpistemologySociologyProtestantismPositive economicsSelection (genetic algorithm)ChinaPhilosophyLawEconomicsPolitical scienceCapitalismPoliticsComputer scienceReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite Weber's explicit rejection in several of his writings of the Darwinian concepts of selection and adaptation, in his sociology of law he briefly discusses the emergence and diffusion of novel forms of behaviour in selectionist terms entirely consistent with the Darwinian paradigm. There is therefore reason to suggest that he could have advanced his ‘Protestant Ethic’ thesis in similar terms, and that if he had its merits and deficiencies would have been significantly easier to diagnose. So interpreted, the thesis is still inadequately supported by the evidence that he adduces in its favour. But a reformulated selectionist version directed to explaining the success of Protestant entrepreneurs in the 18th century is much more convincing, and can be supported by the evidence for what did (and didn't) happen in Scotland and China as well as continental Europe. Moreover, Weber's underestimation of China's economic achievements strengthens rather than weakens the reformulated version.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.315 · 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