Bibliographic record
Abstract
A concept of time is implicit in any theory that endeavors to make sense of human existence. History, particularly world-history or macro-history, is multi-dimensional, relative, and infinite. Comprehending the infinite has long been an epistemological puzzle for both mathematics and philosophy, but one that has never been explicitly contextualized for historical sociological research. Because the infinite needs to be measured by a concept that is similarly infinite, how can one conceive of a non-terminating sweep of history when the tools with which we measure time are themselves finite or use finite increments? By shifting the focus away from the ontology of time to the epistemological issues raised by the concept of infinite time, I contend that historical sociology can begin to incorporate a more explicit understanding of how time affects the results and conclusions drawn from historical research through an understanding of the methodological and polemical implications of the epistemological issues raised by the concept of infinite time. In this article, I contend that an explicit philosophy of infinite time for historical sociology has implications for the epistemological foundations of historical sociology, but more importantly, affects whether historical sociology can describe the political economy of capitalism and develop left praxis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".