Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Public opinion” is a contested term that is difficult to define. There is a central tension running through the study of public opinion. One side is captured by Charles Horton Cooley's view that public opinion is an organic process, the other by F.H. Allport's position that public opinion measures the statistical distributions of individuals' responses to opinion surveys. Jacques Necker, in 1789, was the first to popularize the term which came to represent the political views of the nascent middle class as it emerged in Europe and the pressures it created for the absolutist state. Today, public opinion and polling are seen as two sides of the same coin, although this changes the ontological status of “the public” and the epistemological understanding of “opinion.” Despite its contested nature, the conceptual tensions that run through its definition, identification, and critical assessment, public opinion remains a critical concept for understanding contemporary society.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.094 |
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".