Five Decades of Class Analysis in the <i>Canadian Review of Sociology</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article discute les grandes trajectoires de l'analyse de classe publiées par La Revue canadienne de sociologie au cours des premières cinq décennies, y compris la recherche aux sujets de la structure de classe, de la classe capitaliste et de la classe ouvrière. Depuis les années 1960s, trois interventions intellectuelles – (1) féministe et antiraciste, (2) poststructuraliste et (3) personnalisation – ont suscité une réorientation et fragmentation de la sous‐discipline de l'analyse de classe. Pour conclure, l'article évalue la mesure à laquelle chaqun de ces interventions ont influencé les chemins de l'analyse de classe publiés par RCS; de plus, il offre trois pensées à propos des futures directions de l'analyse de classe dans la sociologie canadienne. This article discusses the main trajectories of class analysis that have been published by the Canadian Review of Sociology (CRS) over its first five decades, including research on class structure, the capitalist class, and the working class. Since the 1960s, three major intellectual challenges—(1) feminist/antiracist, (2) poststructuralist, and (3) individualization—have reoriented and fragmented the subdiscipline of class analysis. The article concludes by assessing the extent to which each of these intellectual challenges has impacted the streams of class analysis published in the CRS, and offers three thoughts on future directions for class analysis in Canadian sociology.
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 | 0.040 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.058 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".