MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110054792 · doi:10.1177/1532708604268210

C. Wright Mills, the Bureau for Applied Social Research, and the Meaning of Critical Scholarship

2004· article· en· W2110054792 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Studies &#x2194 Critical Methodologies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightScholarshipMeaning (existential)AllegorySociologyWork (physics)Social scienceLawArt historyHistoryEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that C. Wright Mills’s time at Columbia University’s Bureau for Applied Social Research provided a crucial intellectual and institutional basis for his later work, and it uses Mills’s career as an allegory for the history and self-understanding of modern-day, self-described “ critical” scholars. Mills’s own published writings, along with those of his biographers, encourage a view of his time at the bureau as an aberration. Yet, a careful examination of his letters and his work reveals that the critical position for which Mills is famous was actually nourished by his use of surveys, statistics, research teams, and other trappings of administrative research while at the bureau. The article explores the implications of this history for our own understandings of critical research today.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.019
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.423
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.137 · 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