MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163835408

Les limites du Centre : Nature, Place et Héritage du CCCS au sein du monde Académique et Politique (1964-1988)

2025· article· en· W7163835408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eléana Sanchez

Bibliographic record

Venuetheses.fr (ABES) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PoliticsPower (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)DisciplineField (mathematics)Field research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is there room for marginal practices within universities? By contributing a comprehensive institutional history of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) between its founding year in 1964 in Birmingham and its merger with the University of Birmingham’s Department of Sociology in 1988, this dissertation offers possible answers to that question. Building on seminal work assessing the significance of the CCCS in the academic and political world of the second half of the 20th century, this study reveals the entire institutional trajectory of the Centre per se, and lays emphasis on its lesser-known periods and practices. By examining the CCCS’s various networks which supported its founding, endorsed its early production, disseminated its publications and built on its framework to expand the burgeoning field of cultural studies — while coming to its rescue in times of crisis (and sometimes overusing its slender resources) — this dissertation seeks to focus on the working practices which turned the Centre into the so called “Birmingham school”. To do so, it focuses on CCCS’s archival material held at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Research Library and on three series of qualitative interviews with former CCCS members including one conducted especially for this work. By articulating such material, in connection to the historical context during which the Centre evolved for close to a quarter of a century, to a sociological understanding of the power struggles at play within the academic field, this work establishes that the CCCS’s marginality was both a source of strengths and weaknesses: the Centre achieved creating something beyond its own walls, as it became a place where an experience grounded in academic freedom could develop. Nevertheless, the CCCS, its growing fame notwithstanding, was never entirely safe and never ceased to be fragile on the institutional, theoretical and operational levels. Such is the crest line which has been explored in this work. By highlighting these findings, this research contributes one answer (there are many others) to the question of what can be achieved from the margins of the university.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetheses.fr (ABES)Same topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207