Bibliographic record
Abstract
This journal owes its origins to Philippe Besnard, and his initiative in creating from his base in Paris the internationally circulated Bulletin d’études durkheimiennes, produced by him over many years (1977–1987). In going on to become Durkheim Studies in 1988, it remained an internationally distributed bulletin, but now mainly in English and organized in the USA under the direction of Robert Alun Jones. It migrated once again in 1995, to develop as a bilingual journal, Durkheimian Studies / Études durkheimiennes, organized from Britain under a team headed by Bill Pickering and Willie Watts Miller. With this volume we are honoured to assume the editorship of Durkheimian Studies / Études durkheimiennes and in doing so want to acknowledge the legacy of our predecessors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.064 |
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".