MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030938460 · doi:10.1017/s1049096502000884

Why Political Scientists Aren't Public Intellectuals

2002· article· en· W2030938460 on OpenAlex
Andrew W. Stark

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

VenuePS Political Science & Politics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLiterature, Politics, and Exile Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPoliticsPolitical scienceForeign policyGovernment (linguistics)Irrational numberInternational relationsMedia studiesSocial scienceClassicsLawSociologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a New Republic cover story published three years ago entitled “Irrational Exuberance: When Did Political Science Forget about Politics?” the journalist Jonathan Cohn (1999) lamented the disappearance of a certain kind of academic—typified by the Harvard professors James Q. Wilson, Samuel Huntington and Stanley Hoffmann—from contemporary political science departments. Wilson “was more than just a scholar,” Cohn wrote, “he was a public intellectual” whose “byline was as apt to appear on some policy-related article in the New York Times (or The New Republic ) as it was on a peer-reviewed paper in the American Political Science Review .” Huntington, “arguably his generation's most influential student of international relations,” helped to start a popularly read foreign-policy journal. And Hoffmann, whose scholarship spanned “political theory, comparative government and international relations,” still found “time to write regularly for the New York Review of Books .”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.240 · 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