Beyond <i>Bowling Alone</i>: social capital in twenty-first-century America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the years since Bowling Alone was published there have been a number of further developments that shed new light on the preceding analysis, including new research data by Robert Putnam into social capital accumulation in specific communities in America, as well as the impact of larger world events – particularly 9/11 – on the conceptualization of social capital by both academics and politicians in the United States. In 2000, after the publication of Bowling Alone , Robert Putnam and a group of academics, politicians and local community activists created the Saguaro Seminar for Civic Engagement in America, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Its purpose was twofold: to do further, detailed, local research into the nature of the problem across the country (the Social Capital Community Benchmark surveys) and to create an advocacy movement dedicated to rebuilding social capital in local American communities. The Saguaro Seminar ultimately produced a report entitled Better Together in 2001, and a book by the same title was published in 2003. This dual focus (on research and advocacy) reflects a development in both the empirical dimension (represented by the data) and the normative dimension (represented by the advocacy) of the social capital story. Often the research results bleed into the advocacy work, and vice versa, as we shall explore. This chapter will analyse these developments as well as the ways in which President George W. Bush's domestic policies have been shaped by the idea of social capital, and most particularly by the link between the revival of American community and the Church (through the faith-based community initiatives), on the one hand, and patriotism in the wake of 9/11 (through the USA Freedom Corps), on the other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".