MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034436199 · doi:10.1177/0038026120931422

Strategies of public intellectual engagement

2020· article· en· W3034436199 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sociological Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllegiancePerformative utteranceSociologyRelation (database)Bridge (graph theory)EpistemologyPoliticsSection (typography)Special sectionSocial scienceLawPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This introduction to the Special Section on public intellectual engagement has three objectives. First, to explore the different meanings that the polysemic term ‘strategy’ can hold in relation to intellectuals. In the process, we showcase both this concept’s potential theoretical yield and its capacity to bridge the ‘performative’ and event-oriented study of intellectuals more common in English-speaking sociology with longue durée career-oriented analyses more associated with French sociology. The second objective is to reassess some of the main contributions to the sociology of intellectuals by reference to this notion of ‘strategy’, especially concerning issues of political allegiance and group membership. The final objective is to illustrate the potential of this approach in empirical work on intellectual engagement and introduce the articles that comprise the Special Section.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.393
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.025 · 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