Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cliché is still lively: historians, as is well known, tend to portray themselves as craftsmen or artisans, mastering a practical know-how learned patiently through hands-on experience with dusty documents, and showing a conspicuous disdain towards theory and abstractions. This image deserves closer scrutiny. It is interesting that despite this insistence on the craftlike image of the profession, there seems to be a lack of ethnographic investigations of historians at work that would precisely pay attention to the craftiness of history and the multiple practicalities of doing history across different contexts. The idea that historians just do what they do sounds simple enough, but as is the case with any “craft,” from basket weaving to hunting in the rainforest, it is hardly self-evident, either technically or sociologically. To be sure, there are plenty of biographies, autobiographies, “ego-histories,” methodological primers and epistemological essays that tackle and debate the problems of the working historian, but these reflexive narratives remain essentially vertical. Taking our cue from some of the recent developments in science studies and the anthropology of science, we would like to propose in this article a program for a horizontal study of historians, that would be independent of their own reflexive discourse and symmetric in its explanations, and that would be attentive to the varieties of their existence and their becoming in a community of practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".