Where Have You Gone, John R. Commons, Now That We Need You So? (Review Of Daniel T. Rodgers, “Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics In A Progressive Age”)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rodgers' story is one that many will not have heard before.It is the story of a journey of beginnings and endings and how to tell one from another, of old worlds and new and how they sustain and challenge each other, of action and ideas and their causal and temporal relationship, and especially of social justice and the faltering steps America has taken towards that elusive goal.Between 1870 and 1940, three or four generations of American and European progressives-academics, journalists, social activists, enlightened businessmen, architects, politicians, labor leaders and public servants-visited and corresponded back and forth across the Atlantic.For over 70 years, this great, ramshackle pilgrimage of progressive thinkers and doers shuffled towards a notional new Jerusalem, seeking a better world through "social politics," a political, intellectual and moral crusade which recruited some of the best and brightest from the United States, the leading nations of Western Europe and peripheral polities around the Atlantic and in the Antipodes.1 They signed up for graduate degrees, lecture circuits, international congresses, government fact-finding missions and "sociological grand tours;" they inspected social housing and rural cooperatives, insurance bureau and sewage works, tram systems and labor exchanges; they wrote reports and articles, drafted manifestos and statutes; they corresponded and cooperated, debated and denounced; they served warring states and rival political parties of the left, right and center.In some countries they succeeded, or seemed to, only to see their achievements disappear into the cataclysm of war or t York University, Toronto, Canada.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".