MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109678971 · doi:10.1177/0160597615574551

Commit Sociology

2015· article· en· W2109678971 on OpenAlex
Susan Machum, Michael Clow

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanity & Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCommitSociologyPoliticsIdeologyPower (physics)WrightSocial scienceEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it