Weber and Simmel on the sociological form (transcription of a round of ‘Sociology, the game’)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the following transcription, the reader will witness the progress of a board game invented and played by two sociologists. In the round of ‘Sociology, the game’ described here, the two players chose to play two classical sociologists, Max Weber and Georg Simmel. Upon picking question cards relating to different themes (on concepts, writing and methods, among others), they answer with their authors in mind, translating their approach in contemporary language and trying to address some of today’s issues. As the game moves on, the reader will observe that the players engage in a dialogue and seem increasingly concerned with the sociological form and the place of imagination in doing sociology: moving back and forth between each author’s stance and their own concerns as contemporary sociologists, the game helps them at once to bring two different thinkers closer together, and to gain perspective on current issues in doing and writing sociology. The reader will note that the format of the game provides an interesting laboratory of ideas, while not precluding humour and entertainment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".