MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248569184 · doi:10.4000/ifha.7711

Richard Pohle, Max Weber und die Krise der Wissenschaft. Eine Debatte in Weimar

2013· article· de· W4248569184 on OpenAlexaff
Jochen Hoock

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’Institut français d’histoire en Allemagne · 2013
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWeber, Simmel, Sociological Theory
Canadian institutionsInstitut d'Histoire de l'Amérique Française
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La conférence que Max Weber a donné en novembre 1917 devant un public munichois sur le métier du chercheur marque jusqu’à aujourd’hui le débat sur l’activité scientifique et plus généralement sur la place des sciences dans la société. Parmi les contemporains elle a provoqué une controverse qui prend ses débuts avec la publication d’une réplique de la plume d’Erich von Kahler qui paraissait en 1920 sous le titre « De la vocation de la science », qui reprenant des arguments déjà avancés dans u...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’Institut français d’histoire en AllemagneSame topicWeber, Simmel, Sociological TheoryFrench-language works237,207