The End of National Sociological Traditions? The Fates of Sociology in English Canada and French Quebec in a Globalized Field of Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many have denounced the heralded coming of age of a universal sociology as corresponding largely to the hegemony of one scholarly tradition: that of Western Europe and the United States. Canada has been an important scene upon which this debate has unfolded. In this country, the lament that the internationalization of sociology has been, unwittingly, another name for its Americanization has a long history. The mounting challenge posed by globalization and the progressive evolution of social sciences toward a more unified and normalized (in the Kuhnian sense) scientific field have recently fuelled worries and alarms. Is Canadian sociology developing in relative isolation or, to the contrary, is it increasingly engaging on the international academic scene? Based on two sets of quantitative data, concerned respectively with doctoral education and citation practices, this article revisits the question of the internationalization of Canadian sociology by looking at three sectors which are usually identified as essential to the indigenization of disciplines: doctoral training of the professoriat (who conducts the research), objects of study (on what topics are scholars working), and theoretical approaches (how do scholars proceed in their research). By returning to the three basic questions of who, what, and how from a quantitative perspective, this article provides a general understanding of the internationalizing trends that are affecting the discipline.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".