MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143380325 · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0851

Diffusion as Classification

2013· article· en· W2143380325 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

VenueOrganization Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonSchema (genetic algorithms)PhenomenonConflationDiffusionEpistemologyField (mathematics)PopulationHierarchyAgency (philosophy)InstitutionalisationSociologyPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceEvolutionary biologySocial scienceBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An overlooked aspect of the diffusion of a practice in a population is the emergence of a de facto classificatory schema, distinguishing between actors that adopt a practice and those that do not. To investigate diffusion as classification, I develop a simulation model that highlights the conditions under which limited diffusion of practices leads to the emergence and entrenchment of classificatory schemas. The model depicts classification as a systemic phenomenon resulting from the interplay of actor-level micromotives and field-level macrobehaviors that jointly drive diffusion. Whereas extant theory on the origin of classificatory schemas emphasizes the role of agency, results from the model suggest that classificatory schemas can emerge somewhat unintentionally as practices diffuse. Moreover, by conceptualizing diffusion as classification, I suggest a means for disentangling the closely related and often conflated concepts of diffusion and institutionalization.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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