MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Public Spaces, Knowledge, and Sociability

2012· book-chapter· en· W2728736083 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanRealmSociologyRubricPublic sphereConsumption (sociology)Civil societyFreudian slipSocial scienceAestheticsEpistemologyLawPsychoanalysisPolitical scienceHistoryPsychologyPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The concept of sociability was introduced as an analytic term by the German sociologist Georg Simmel. Sociability has figured prominently in recent histories of consumer society and material cultures. It has become increasingly clear to historians and social theorists that the places where consumption took place, or where consumer desires were stimulated, and the social milieux in which consumers were located, are just as important to understand as the actual acts of consumption. The German sociologist Norbert Elias introduced Freudian insights into human psychology into a ‘processual’, or what is sometimes called a ‘figurational’, framework for his historical sociology. His works have had a major impact on the history of sociability and knowledge formation. The history of ‘civil society’ has been a major growth industry in the last few decades, and much of this work has developed under the rubric of explaining and exploring the rise of a ‘public sphere’ in early modern Europe. Unlike Elias, the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas located the origins of modern sociability and civil society outside of the realm of court society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicFashion and Cultural TextilesFrench-language works237,207