Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sixties and cultural politics In July 2006, I was invited to take part in a day of national and regional press interviews. The topic was “The 60s: The Beatles Decade,” a five-part series by UKTV History which explored the influence of music on the 1960s. The series was accompanied by a survey which compared the experiences of those growing up in the sixties, seventies, and eighties, and revealed that over a third (34 percent of the 3,000 adults interviewed) conceded that at one time or another they have embroidered their past in order to gain the respect of their family and friends. A quarter of these claimed that they were flexible with the truth in order to appear “cool” to their children. Yet only 15 percent of those growing up in the seventies, and a mere 5 percent of those growing up in the eighties, admitted to lying about their past. In particular, those growing up in the sixties were most likely to exaggerate their “beat generation” credentials – with a quarter claiming that they were a part of or had associations with the hippy movement, when in reality a mere 6 percent could really lay claim to this being true. One in five admitted lying about the drugs they had taken. Twenty-two percent of those questioned admitted that they had used the line, “I was too stoned to remember the sixties,” whereas in reality a mere 8 percent had tried cannabis and only 1 percent had tried acid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".