Cited by 4,838Contemporary Sociological Theory and PracticePhilosophy and History of ScienceResearch, Science, and Academia

Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists

Gieryn, Thomas F.·1983·American Sociological Review

Abstract

Thomas F. Gieryn, Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Dec., 1983), pp. 781-795

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2095325

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gieryn, T. F.
Corresponding author
Gieryn, Thomas F.
Venue
American Sociological Review
Published
1983-12
Volume
48
Issue
6
Pages
781
ISSN
0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2333909909
Cited by
4,838
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 363 · 2025: 307 · 2024: 297 · 2023: 316 · 2022: 263 · 2021: 289 · 2020: 281 · 2019: 299 · 2018: 249 · 2017: 202 · 2016: 208 · 2015: 165 · 2014: 195 · 2013: 172 · 2012: 193
FWCI
33.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
boundary work, demarcation problem, science and non-science, professional ideology, scientists, professionalization of science, sociology of science, epistemology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review