MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Machine Learning Is Reviving Sociological Theorization

2024· book-chapter· en· W4401798876 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyEpistemologySociological theorySociological researchSocial scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As machine learning (ML) algorithms get more sophisticated, ML enhances the role of theory in sociology. ML, despite its capacity to process data in complex ways, by definition only draws on limited representations of social systems. Humans have direct observational and experiential access to these systems, along with broad worldviews and tacit knowledge that make it possible to translate models of systems into knowledge of systems. The integration of the limited representational view of ML and the expansive human worldview is transforming sociological knowledge production. ML revitalizes theory in sociology in two key ways: by shifting the focus of theorizing from a priori to a posteriori and by necessitating ongoing interpretation and theorizing by scholars at every stage of the research process, thus integrating theory throughout research design. A creole computational social science can blend knowledge from multiple disciplines to enhance the knowledge-generating process overall.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.228 · 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