Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article elaborates how C. Wright Mills’ “sociological imagination” invites us to “commit sociology.” We argue critical thinking is the foundation of a liberal arts education, and its purpose is to have students recognize that the social world is constantly being constructed and reconstructed—how exactly depends upon the power dynamics embedded in the social, economic, and political institutions of any given time and place. Yet it is very challenging to achieve an awareness of the larger social processes in which our everyday actions are embedded or to recognize the role our everyday practices have in the maintenance or erosion of existing social injustices and inequalities. Moreover, political leaders feel threatened when their agendas, policies, and actions are questioned by the masses. Committing sociology— ipso facto being a successful liberal arts graduate engaged in public debates—threatens political leaders because it calls them to account for their ideologies and the impacts of their policies: a “crime” indeed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.008 |
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".