The changing identity of research: A cultural and conceptual history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science as a body of knowledge (natural and/or social) and as a method (experimental and hermeneutic) has been discussed and debated for centuries among philosophers and ‘men of science’ (scientists). This paper looks at research, the latest element added to the discourse on science. Science as research (an activity or practice), conducted at the level of individuals or organizations, has received increased attention over the course of the twentieth century in public discourse on what science is. This paper documents how different players enlarged the meaning of research from the academic sphere to also encompass government and industry, and from research to research and development. It also examines the restriction of research to mean laboratory research, and the marginalization of the role of research in explaining economic progress. It is suggested that these changes bear witness to a shift in society’s cultural values: from (basic) research to (industrial) development to (technological) innovation.
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 | 0.042 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.183 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".