The system and its logic (2): from sociology to the subjective synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From every direction – epistemological, ontological, political, moral – all roads along the path of securing the scientific outlook as an all-encompassing system of thought led Comte to what he announced, in Philosophie positive , as ‘social physics’ or ‘sociology’. A science of society was required not just to complete the scientific revolution by including all orders of phenomena in its range. It was also needed in order to positivise our understanding of that, and thus to complete the positivisation of human thought about thought itself. However, any such solution to the problems inhering in Bacon's initial attempt to think through the implications of a world-view based on the principles of a phenomenalist and instrumentalist practice of science was bound to change the matrix. Foucault's account of how ‘Man’ (that ‘strange being … whose nature is to know nature’) was ‘fabricated’ by the ‘demiurge of knowledge’ makes a similar point (1970:308-10). For Foucault there never was, nor could have been, a single ‘science of Man’. Nevertheless, the emergence of les sciences humaines into this giddily reflexive epistemic space was transforming. It effected a decisive break from the ‘classical’ to the ‘modern episteme’, in the course of which the transparent representationalism which governed the former gave way to a more complex and would-be self-grounding discursivity. Foucault's account of this shift gives a pivotal role to Kant (1970:312 et seq.).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".