Scientific Partisanship: The Social Geometry of Intellectual Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article applies D. Black's pure sociology paradigm to examine the degree to which scientific evidence supports ideas deduced from the perspective. The main argument suggests that the empirical support for pure sociology varies inversely with the social distance separating scholars in social space. Moreover, the nature of the evidence adduced and the use of qualitative or quantitative methodologies predictably vary with social distance as well, increasing the likelihood of finding confirming or disconfirming evidence. The study tests these ideas by examining the full range of refereed journal articles ( n = 191) published from 1976 to 2015 with pure sociology as the main focus. L'article utilise le paradigme de la sociologie pure de D. Black afin d'examiner à quel point les évidences scientifiques soutiennent les idées proposées par cette approche. L'argument principal suggère que le soutien empirique pour la sociologie pure varie inversement avec la distance sociale séparant les spécialistes dans l'espace social. De plus, la nature des évidences obtenues et l'utilisation de méthodes qualitatives ou quantitatives varient aussi en fonction de la distance sociale, augmentant la probabilité d'obtenir des évidences confirmant ou réfutant le paradigme. Cette recherche teste ces idées en examinant l'ensemble des articles de revues avec évaluations externes ( n = 191) publiés entre 1976 et 2015 avec la sociologie pure comme focus principal.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".