Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2026 Mar 30;117:102151. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2026.102151. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines large language models (LLMs) as research tools in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science (HPSS). Because LLMs can work directly with heterogeneous, unstructured texts and capture meaning-relevant associations from usage patterns, they offer new ways to bridge close reading and corpus-scale analysis, challenging the idea that computational scale and interpretive nuance must trade off. We provide a compact primer on LLMs, covering the main components of their neural network architecture, the differences between generative and full-context models, and adaptation strategies such as fine-tuning, prompt-based learning, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Building on this foundation, we analyze how LLMs recast three classic methodological problems in HPSS: working with historically messy data, detecting and interpreting large-scale patterns, and modeling scientific change over time. Across these areas we synthesize recent work in HPSS and adjacent fields, and we clarify how LLM outputs can function as exploratory prompts, as inputs to more structured pipelines, or as evidence under stricter validation and documentation. We conclude with four lessons: 1) model choice embeds interpretive trade-offs, 2) responsible use requires LLM literacy, 3) HPSS should develop its own tasks and evaluation practices, and 4) LLMs should extend rather than replace established interpretive methods. We also situate these methodological questions within broader concerns about platform dependence, accountability, and the responsibilities attached to research infrastructures. Finally, we argue that HPSS is well positioned to both use LLMs and to interrogate what counts as explanation, evidence, and responsible use in interpretive research.

PMID:41916166 | DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2026.102151

Public Underst Sci. 2024 Oct;33(7):918-934. doi: 10.1177/09636625241229923. Epub 2024 Feb 28.

ABSTRACT

Wikipedia's influence in shaping public perceptions of science underscores the significance of scientists being recognized on the platform, as it can impact their careers. Although Wikipedia offers guidelines for determining when a scientist qualifies for their own article, it currently lacks guidance regarding whether a scientist should be acknowledged in articles related to the innovation processes to which they have contributed. To explore how Wikipedia addresses this issue of scientific "micro-notability," we introduce a digital method called Name Edit Analysis, enabling us to quantitatively and qualitatively trace mentions of scientists within Wikipedia's articles. We study two CRISPR-related Wikipedia articles and find dynamic negotiations of micro-notability as well as a surprising tension between Wikipedia's principle of safeguarding against self-promotion and the scholarly norm of "due credit." To reconcile this tension, we propose that Wikipedians and scientists collaborate to establish specific micro-notability guidelines that acknowledge scientific contributions while preventing excessive self-promotion.

PMID:38419208 | PMC:PMC11504141 | DOI:10.1177/09636625241229923