Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the analytical insight that Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society provides into key aspects of contemporary social life, the theory of risk society has been subject to important criticisms. One of the most powerful criticisms of Beck’s theorization of risk society is that Beck ‘totalizes’ risk, treating risk as if it is the ‘centre’ of contemporary social and material life, thus neglecting other important factors (Dean 1999: 181–2; Rasborg 2012: 10). This criticism creates a particularly important challenge for this study. Conceiving of risk as the sole ‘centre’ of social relations precludes the exploration of other key structuring factors, such as class relations or the interrelations between risk and class. Another aspect of Beck’s theory of risk society that has received extensive critical attention is his understanding of risk society as an epoch fundamentally different than previous epochs based on the qualitatively different roles of risk in the emerging risk society (Scott 2000; see also Lupton 1999; Mythen 2004: 39; Savage 2009b). Given these two fundamental criticisms it is necessary to ask: is the theory of risk society the appropriate basis for developing an understanding of contemporary risk?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".