Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is about the rise of modern science and how the world got to be the way it is. The twentieth century has witnessed extraordinary collisions of societies, cultures, and civilizations. As a by-product of the newly intensified global economy, the last quarter of this century has experienced unprecedented fusions of cultures. What has not been sufficiently recognized, however, is the degree to which the cultural and legal forms forged in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the West laid the foundations for the present world order. Among these early modern cultural forms are those that created forums of free and open discourse that have led to universal forms of participation – in the world of thought, in government, and in commerce. Modern science is one striking example of a universalizing form of social discourse and participation. The continuing globalization of the practice of modern science represents a prime test of the proposition that universal forms of dialogue and participation exist and that they appeal to peoples of diverse cultures of origin. The possible shift of the center of modern science from the West to the East further dramatizes the universality of this mode of dialogue. Nevertheless, alongside these universalizing forms of discourse and participation are equally strong forces asserting the priority of ethnic and local particularities. There are also those who fear more sinister uses of the fruits of scientific understanding. Likewise, the battle over the ascendancies of the various forms of reason and rationality will continue unabated. The present moment is filled with anticipation and apprehension as to whether the forces of equality and inclusiveness will prevail, or whether the forces of ethnic exclusivity and indigenous identities will further divide the communities of the world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.519 | 0.362 |
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".