Bibliographic record
Abstract
La mobilité sociale occupe une place majeure dans la sociologie depuis la fin de la guerre. Depuis quelques temps toutefois des doutes sont émis sur le sens et l'utilité de ces travaux; des critiques sérieuses portent en particulier sur les idéologies sous-jacentes à ces recherches. L'auteur prend position sur cette question. Il montre qu'à travers certains écrits de Marx on peut constater une reconnaissance du fait de la mobilité. Les positions de Bernstein, Sombart, Michels et Sorokin sont scrutées. Puis l'auteur passe à un examen et une critique des positions de Lipset, Blau et Duncan. Il aborde ensuite les écrits des socialistes britanniques du début du siècle et les travaux de la London School of Economies sous la direction de Glass. Finalement il critique nettement les positions de certains " post-marxistes ", particulièrement Poulantzas. Il lui oppose les travaux de Westergaard, Resler, Giddens et Parkin. Il affirme en conclusion que les recherches en mobilité ne doivent en aucune façon être incompatibles avec une problématique de type " marxiste " ou " radical ".
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".