Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science and expertise have been antithetical forms of knowledge in both the ancient and the modern world, but they appear identical in today's postmodern world, especially in the Science & Technology Studies (STS) literature.The ancient Athenians associated science (epistemé) with the contemplative life afforded to those who lived from inherited wealth.Expertise (techné) was for those lacking property, and hence citizenship.Such people were regularly forced to justify their usefulness to Athenian society.Some foreign merchants, collectively demonised in Plato's Dialogues as 'sophists', appeared so insulting to citizen Socrates, because they dared to alienate aspects of this leisured existence (e.g. the capacity for articulate reasoning) and repackage them as techniques that might be purchased on demand from an expert -that is, a sophist.In effect, the sophists cleverly tried to universalise their own alien status, taking full advantage of the strong analogy that Athenians saw between the governance of the self and the polis.Unfortunately, Plato, the original spin doctor, immortalised Socrates' laboured and hyperbolic rearguard response to these sly and partially successful attempts at dislodging hereditary privilege.In any case, science and expertise led a more harmonious existence in the pre-modern Christian era, as everyone was expected to live by the sweat of their brow, an aspect of the labour theory of value that joined Thomas Aquinas to Karl Marx.Medieval monasteries were the original communes, in which the monks alternated between contemplating God and taking turns at the scriptorium and/or the vineyard.A privatised version of this ethic came to be known as the 'Renaissance Man', as exemplified by the careers of Leonardo da Vinci and especially Galileo.In this context, the boundary separating science and expertise became more porous, specifically enabling technical arts of instrumentation and experimentation to become constitutive of scientific inquiry itself.The Royal Society of London famously institutionalised that attitude.However, the unprecedented achievement of Newtonian mechanics led * Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK.Originally trained in history and philosophy of science (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, 1985), he is best known for 'social epistemology', the name of a journal he founded in 1987 and the first of his fifteen books, the most recent of which include The knowledge book: Key concepts in philosophy, science and culture (Acumen and McGill-Queens University Press, 2007), New frontiers in Science and Technology Studies (Polity, 2007), and Science vs Religion?Intelligent Design and the problem of evolution.His works have been translated into more than fifteen languages.In 2007 he was awarded a 'higher doctorate' (D.Litt.)by Warwick for distinguished contributions to scholarship.He was recently elected President for the Sociology and Social Policy section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".