Een gat prikken in de wankele polder van de geschiedfilosofie;\nEen onderzoek naar machtsverdeling en politieke invloeden in de polemiek tussen Frank Ankersmit en Chris Lorenz in 1984-1985.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In deze scriptie staat de polemiek die tussen Frank Ankersmit en Chris Lorenz gevoerd werd in het Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis centraal. Aan de hand van Pierre Bourdieu´s wetenschapssociologie wordt gepoogd om een beeld te geven van de machtsverdeling in het academische veld van de geschiedfilosofie in de jaren ´80. Daarnaast wordt er een analyse gegeven van de ´politieke´ invloed op de acties en argumenten van beide geschiedfilosofen in de discussie over de inmenging van sociaal-wetenschappelijke methoden in de geschiedwetenschap. Ik zal beargumenteren dat het sociale kapitaal in de vorm van academische autoriteit in de nieuwgeboren discipline van de geschiedwetenschap in Nederland gelijk verdeeld was en dat er geen sprake was van een monopolie.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.005 |
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".