MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600613233 · doi:10.1177/0011392117694411

Expanding the borders of <i>The Sociological Imagination</i> : Spatial difference and social inequality

2017· article· en· W2600613233 on OpenAlex
Rob Shields

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Sociology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatializationSociologyPresuppositionMainstreamWrightEpistemologyGlobalizationSocial scienceInequalitySpace (punctuation)Relation (database)AnthropologyMathematicsPolitical scienceLinguisticsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that C Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination has changed, as evident in sociologies that think beyond national societies and analyse globalization. This ‘imagination’ has in effect been ‘expanded’, moving from one-dimensional (linear) analyses based on historical vectors of force and teleologies to a more contextualized, relativized spatial analysis with more dimensions. There were always outliers. However, at least for mainstream North American sociology, this represents a change in the spatialization of social science, a change in its presuppositions about space, not the becoming spatial of a non-spatial sociology. Borders and mobilities across and along borders are examined in relation to what is needed to confront them critically in a new spatial regime – a new ‘spatialization’ of the social. A hypothesis is developed that understands borderlines relationally as institutions and social technologies that introduce difference and inequalities into an otherwise homogeneous social and spatiotemporal ‘cultural topology’.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it