Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article thématise la singularité en tant que nouvel objet théorique de la sociologie. Établissant une distinction claire entre la singularité et la particularité, il vise à montrer que la sociologie s’est historiquement intéressée de façon privilégiée à la généralité, du fait de ses orientations nomothétiques, et ce faisant à l’articulation entre le général et le particulier. La seule singularité mise en exergue dans cette perspective était celle de la trajectoire historique occidentale, mais celle-ci était elle-même appréhendée de façon globale. Considérer la singularité comme nouvel objet de la sociologie implique de mettre en évidence l’effet conjugué des développements internes de la discipline (critique de la réduction du singulier au particulier ou de la confusion entre singularité et homogénéité) et des transformations sociohistoriques. L’analyse est approfondie à travers trois entrées principales : la singularité de l’individu, la singularité des dynamiques actionnelles et interactionnelles et la singularité historique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".