Editor's Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Sociology was created by and for graduate students; it is the sole product of our critical insights, creative impulses, radical political energies, and overall willingness to push the boundaries of knowledge. We created New Sociology on our own terms, with the ideas, politics, and best interests of emergent scholars, activists, and artists in mind. We created New Sociology to make academia a bit more survivable for people like us. We created New Sociology to honour the pedagogical power inherent, not just in academic critique, but in art and storytelling. We created New Sociology to challenge the idea that only old dead white men have something to say about society. We created New Sociology to give graduate students the chance to participate in the creation and dissemination of academic knowledge. We created New Sociology to distribute academic publications to a wide and diverse audience. We created New Sociology to support other graduate students; to support our friends, our communities, and our ourselves. We created New Sociology.
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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.097 |
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".