Bibliographic record
Abstract
To make a distinction between political and social reform may appear simplistic, especially when one considers that many turn of the century social reformers were advocates of prohibition, temperance, child welfare and they turned to the pursuit of female enfranchisement, to achieve their goals. Yet, for social reformers contemporary critics, there was a distinction between political and social reforms, and in their eyes, the ones that needed to be urgently implemented were the latter. The review of social reformer Herbert Brown Ames' municipal career shows that he chose to focus on political reform. He did not envision reforms that would radically transform society. Instead, he asked those with means to assume what he believed should be their moral and financial responsibilities towards the less fortunate. He still believed in the hierarchy of classes. He emphasized the importance of honest businessmen holding positions of potential authority, stressing that the key to a better society resided in the establishment of a professional, accountable, and "scientific" municipal government made up of men like himself. His attempt at professionalizing the municipal government should be seen as a first effort at creating a bureaucra^. Ames should be remembered as a paternalist philanthropist businessman who advocated political reforms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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".