Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citation (2016), "List of Contributors", The Astructural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? (Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 46), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, p. vii. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0163-239620160000046014 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Steve Bailey Department of Humanities, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Mary Jo Deegan Department of Sociology (Emerita), University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA Michael A. Katovich Department of Sociology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA Donileen R. Loseke Department of Sociology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Patrick J. W. McGinty Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, USA Gil Richard Musolf Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA Sarah Rosenthal Vaughan Department of Sociology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA Natalia Ruiz-Junco Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Michael Schwalbe Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Norbert Wiley Department of Sociology (Emeritus), University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA Book Chapters The Astructural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? Studies in Symbolic Interaction The Astructural Bias Charge: Myth or Reality? Copyright Page List of Contributors Acknowledgement Series Editor’s Introduction The Intellectual Origins of the Debate Over the Astructural Bias Ruinous Reification: The Astructural Bias in Symbolic Interactionism Jane Addams, the Chicago Schools of Sociology, and the Emergence of Symbolic Interaction, 1889–1935 Mead’s Field Theory and its Implications for American Minorities Overcoming Aprocessual Bias in the Study of Inequality: Parsing the Capitalist Interaction Order Symbolic Interaction and Narrative Productions of Meaning in Public Spaces The Persistence of the Power Deficit? Advancing Power Premises in Contemporary Interactionist Theory Astructure/Which Structure?: Rethinking “Astructural Bias” in Symbolic Interaction Through Georges Bataille and his Followers Final Assessments New Interpretive Works Alcoholism and The Simpsons: Connecting Symbolic Interactionism and Pastiche About the Authors
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.171 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".