Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this stimulating book Peter Stearns provides a short examination of the history of shame, primarily in Western Europe and the United States, but in some other regions as well, including Ancient civilizations and Asia. His main purpose is to contribute to the existing literature on shame by presenting an historical account that will demonstrate how shaming has changed—but equally how it has persisted and what new forms it has taken. He contends that an historical analysis calls into question the common distinction we make between shame-based and guilt-based societies, and the notion that any transformation that has taken place is simply one of the outcomes of “modernity.” He holds that we need to examine carefully a variety of cultural changes if we want to understand the history of shame. He devotes the most space to comparing agricultural societies with industrial societies, but he also gives some consideration to pre-agricultural societies. He traces how shaming has declined in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, focussing primarily on its decline in the United States. In broad terms he believes that the major source of the decline was a cultural shift toward a greater value being placed on individualism and individual dignity. As a result, considerable opposition to shaming developed, especially to the way in which it was being used to punish children and those convicted of crimes, and more recently to belittle the obese and the physically or mentally challenged. These campaigns were embedded in larger reform movements that emerged in different periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".