Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de déclarations de sociologues majeurs du tournant du XIX e siècle sur une « mode » sociologique en France, cet article propose d’évaluer, en adoptant une méthode bibliométrique, l’existence d’une telle « mode » en considérant la sociologie d’abord comme un fait éditorial. Nous avons constitué un corpus de plus de 400 publications se réclamant de la « sociologie » dans leur titre entre 1841 et 1925, révélant une explosion éditoriale du label « sociologie » autour de 1900. Si la majorité des auteurs de ces publications participent d’un mouvement scientifique et intellectuel autour de la sociologie et des sciences sociales, l’absence de monopole scientifique sur le terme même de « sociologie » permet des usages extra-savants, généralement idéologiques, de la référence. La « mode » sociologique, qui consiste en l’articulation de ces deux phénomènes, constitue alors un épisode d’une histoire culturelle de la sociologie.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".