Bibliographic record
Abstract
For all sociologists do to help students recognize various forms of oppression and the ways systems of the same might be dismantled, at a disciplinary level, sociology remains complicit in reproducing the same kind of inequities many of us purport to oppose.That should not be surprising-decades of research emphasizes the way norms are internalized and the ways individuals can participate in producing an outcome without agreeing with it.Here, I want to expose a particular equity issue in the discipline, and offer a potential solution.A substantial number of sociologists are positioned as peripheral participants in the discipline-employed to transmit the discipline's knowledge and social capital to students, but practically, if not explicitly, excluded from shaping the discipline itself through the production and publication of sociological research.As much as post-secondary institutions claim to pursue teaching excellence, and however sincere they are in these commitments, in contemporary academic environments, research and the publication of research are essential to the construction of legitimate academic identities (Archer, 2008; Gonzales & Terosky, 2016; Kreber, 2010).
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".