From Porter to Bourdieu: The Evolving Specialty Structure of English Canadian Sociology, 1966 to 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How has English Canadian sociology changed from 1966 to 2014? Has it become more intellectually fragmented or cohesive over time? We answer these questions by analyzing cocitation networks extracted from 7,141 sociology articles published in 169 journals. We show how the most central early specialties developed largely in response to John Porter's The Vertical Mosaic. In later decades, the discipline diversified, fragmented, and then reorganized around a new set of specialties knit together by the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The discipline was most intellectually fragmented in periods where multiple specialties were emerging or declining concurrently (i.e., 1975 to 1984 and 1995 to 2004), and was more structurally cohesive from 2005 to 2014 than in any previous period. Comment est-ce que la sociologie canadienne-anglaise a-t-elle changé entre 1966 et 2014? Est-elle devenue plus intellectuellement fragmentée ou cohérente avec le temps? Nous répondons à ces questions en analysant des réseaux de co-citation qui ont été déduits de 7,141 articles publiés par 169 journaux. Nous démontrons les spécialités primordiales se sont développées en réponse de The Vertical Mosaic de John Porter. Durant les décennies suivantes, la discipline s'est diversifiée, fragmentée et puis s'est réorganisée autour d'une nouvelle série de spécialités liées ensemble par le travail de Pierre Bourdieu. La discipline était la plus intellectuellement fragmentée durant les périodes où plusieurs spécialités émergeaient ou déclinaient concurremment (par exemple de 1975 à 1985 et de 1995 à 2004). Par contre, elle était plus cohérente que tous les autres périodes entre 2005 et 2014.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".