Tocquevillian Ideas. Contemporary European Perspectives, ed. by Zbigniew Rau and Marek Tracz-Tryniecki, University Press of America, Lanhan, Boulder, New York–Toronto–Plymouth 2014, ss. 169.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
W toczącej się ostatnio debacie na temat polskiej humanistyki, od której wymaga się przede wszystkim anglojęzycznych publikacji, wypłynięcia na szerokie, światowe wody, a także podejmowania nośnych i międzynarodowych tematów, omawiana książka jest dowodem na to, że takie postulaty da się zrealizować, co więcej -że można osiągnąć na tym polu sukces.Trzeba jednak pamiętać, że wydanie tej książki poprzedziła wielka praca i wieloletnia już działalność centrum Alexisa de Tocqueville'a, działającego w Łodzi pod dyrekcją Zbigniewa Raua.Słynne, odbywające się od lat Debaty Tocqueville'owskie i nawiązywane w Centrum kontakty przyniosły owoc w postaci omawianej pracy.Jest to praca zbiorowa, zawierająca 8 opracowań.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".