Bibliographic record
Abstract
This discussion will attempt to elucidate the various employments of the term ‘modernity’ in historical scholarship. I argue, following Dipesh Chakrabarty’s article “The Muddle of Modernity,” that the use of the term modernity privileges those societies of the industrialized West. This focus on the modern privileges modernity as an era at the apex of societal development in those time periods where industrialization occurred. Through the course of this discussion, I also argue that this periodization encompasses an idealized modernity which was conceived as the pinnacle of human society. In this view, all other societies and time periods were in the process of mirroring the modernized society. The sources for this paper are various surveys of national history, ranging from the developed European nations, such as France and England, to the so-called ‘developing’ nations, such as South Africa and Pakistan. These monographs, despite their variety in content, share their focus of the state’s attempt to develop and/or to maintain political institutions, as well as to acquire, to a varying degree, industrial capital. These focuses lend themselves to a somewhat ‘Whiggish’ perspective on history in which ‘progress’ ever increases through time toward the present day.
 
 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15572/ENCO2014.07
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".