Bibliographic record
Abstract
La sociologie des problèmes sociaux a connu un tournant dans les années 1960 avec l’émergence d’une nouvelle façon de traiter la « déviance » dans des livres et des articles de Howard Becker, Erving Goffman, Joseph Gusfield, Fred Davis, Aaron Cicourel et quelques autres. Cet article revient sur ce moment clé. En dépouillant la revue Social Problems (1961-1965), il remet en cause l’idée qu’aurait existé une « école de l’étiquetage » bien unifiée. Il rappelle l’importance de la Société pour l’étude des problèmes sociaux et du Centre d’études sur le droit et la société de Berkeley comme cadres institutionnels de ce tournant. Il examine la nouveauté des approches que l’on qualifiera plus tard d’interactionnistes et d’ethnométhodologiques. Il passe en revue les catégories de réaction sociétale, carrières et cultures, croisade morale et contrôle social — depuis devenues classiques. Et il repose une série de questions qui vaudront désormais pour l’étude des problèmes publics : qui subit et qui agit ? Qui compte et mesure ? Qui accuse et condamne ? Qui surveille et punit ?
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".