Correction to: C. Wright Mills in Copenhagen: Collaboration, Politics, and the Making of 'The Sociological Imagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
American sociologist C. Wright Mills is one of the most important and controversial sociologists of the post-war period.Of Mills' works, one book stands out: The Sociological Imagination, published by Oxford University Press in 1959.Little known is that Mills drafted his book during a 12-month Fulbright visit to University of Copenhagen 1956Copenhagen -1957. .In the rich biographical literature on Mills this is mentioned only in the passing, or not at all.Based on hitherto unused archival material, this paper offers the first detailed account of his Copenhagen-visit during the Cold War.Bringing together this bulk of new historical traces sheds new light on the year Mills himself referred to as a "pivotal moment."These 12 months in Copenhagen, amid the Cold War, was formative for Mills in two ways: First, Copenhagen was an entrepot to European centerleft thinking both east and west of the Iron Curtain.Second, the stay in Copenhagen offered a 'space of selfhood', allowing Mills a necessary respite to develop his critical thinking.He did so in close cooperation with like-minded colleagues in Copenhagen.In the mid-1950s, the discipline was in the making in Denmark, and the visit of a prominent US scholar like Mills offered opportunities for Danish sociologist to further the discipline -and their standing within the discipline.
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 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.027 |
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".