The Reinvention of Grand Theories of the Scientific/Scholarly Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid-twentieth century, the reigning understanding of the scientific process, logical positivism, disintegrated. Subsequently, there has been fragmentation in science studies (Hess 1997; Yearley 2005; Sismondo 2008; Restivo and Croissant 2008). Many have emphasized the postmodern theme that general theories or grand narratives are impossible. Despite a profusion of diversity, some sociologists and sociologically-minded philosophers of science continue to produce general theories of the scientific/scholarly process. Through textual analysis and interviews, we studied ten such theories empirically on eleven issues, assessing their compatibility or lack thereof with each other, aiming to determine whether a new general theory is emerging.
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 | 0.066 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".