Les structures de sentiment et la critique de la vie quotidienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Britain, in the 1960s and 70s, an ordinary ‘structure of feeling’ emerged that directed some of the democratic energy that was responsible for the emergence of the welfare state towards taste formations that transformed ideal domestic environments (and real ones of course) into a material landscape that was characterised by informality, private sociability and an individualised sense of freedom. Exemplary in performing this transformation was the taste formation that I want to name after the shop Habitat (it was called Conran in the United States), which, by the time Margaret Thatcher came to power, was in most large towns and cities in the UK, as well as France, Canada, US and Japan. In Japan it was included as part of the Seibu department store; in France it had a flagship store (which is still in operation) as part of the Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Habitat was the domestic aesthetic of the new middle classes in Britain. It was open, informal, it mixed the old and the new. It took simplified modernist designs from Scandinavia and Japan and mixed it with a Mediterranean sense of convivial ways of eating and socialising. In many ways it was left leaning, but this was a new form of liberalism of the left: newly private and laissez faire. It didn’t cause the emergence of neoliberalism as a cultural form, but it did furnish it with an environment where ‘freedom’ has a flavour and tactility, and where there was little room for equality and collectivity as the central political value. To persuade you that this characterisation is useful for understanding changes in everyday life in Britain in the 1960s and 70s and beyond I need to pursue a short theoretical journey.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".