Notice bibliographique
Résumé
More on Bertrand’s Brother Timothy J. Madigan (bio) Ruth Derham. To Be Frank: the Politics and Polemics of a Radical Russell. London: Spokesman, 2022. Pp. 206. isbn: 978-0-85124-9117; £16.99. In her magisterial biography of Frank Russell, Bertrand’s Brother: the Marriages, Morals and Misdemeanours of Frank, 2nd Earl Russell (reviewed in the summer 2021 issue of this journal) Ruth Derham brought back to life a figure all but forgotten, even by admirers of his brother, Bertrand. Frank Russell (1865–1931) was previously something of a cipher in the annals of the Russell family. He is a spectral figure in the various biographies of his younger brother, lurking in the background, referred to obliquely if at all even though Bertrand was almost 60 when Frank died. So theirs was a long as well as a complicated relationship (as is true of many siblings). I must admit that, before reading Derham’s biography, all I really knew about Frank was that he had taught Bertrand the rudiments of Euclidean geometry, had several complicated marriages and [End Page 190] divorces, served a prison term for bigamy, and was something like a real-life version of A. A. Milne’s Toad of Toad Hall—a blustering and reckless enthusiast for motor-cars with a proclivity for crashes. Derham did an exemplary job of showing what a complex man Frank was, as well as how intimately involved he was with many of the causes his brother is so identified with, including the promotion of birth control and women’s rights, political reform, freethought, and criticisms of organized religion. Now, in this companion volume, published by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation’s Spokesman Books, Derham has collected a representative sample of Frank’s writings and speeches, which allow him to speak for himself. While his eccentricities are certainly in evidence—particularly his love for motoring and his dislike of speed limits on English country roads (see Chap. 5, “Automobilism”)—so too are his thoughtfulness and fearlessness, traits he certainly shared with his younger brother. In common with his brother as well, Frank had, to put it mildly, a complicated love life. This is dealt with in great detail in Bertrand’s Brother, including the convoluted reasons for his trial for bigamy in the House of Lords and subsequent imprisonment. In To Be Frank we get the chance to read his anguished pleas for the reform of British divorce law, which forced people to stay together who desired greatly to end their relationship. In a House of Lords debate on May 1, 1902 he argued: It often happens that persons make mistakes in their marriages. If we were all omniscient, no doubt we should all contract happy and successful marriages; but as it is, persons sometimes make mistakes, and in such contracts the Legislature ought, as far as possible, to enable the contracting parties to place themselves in the position they occupied before they made their mistake. I hold that the object of a well-thought-out system of divorce should be to provide a lawful method by which persons who contract such unfortunate alliances might free themselves. (P. 81) Alas, Frank was a voice crying in the wilderness, as divorce law would not be reformed until long after his death. Indeed, as Derham rightly points out, one reason why he has been so obscure for so long is due to the fact that he was often far ahead of his time: “Frank did not live to see many of his campaigns come to fruition and history is not so good at remembering such pioneers, especially when others took up the banner at a critical moment” (p. 1). But this collection shows us how in many ways it was Bertrand who took up the banner and did live to see many of his brother’s labours bear fruit. There is much fun to be had in reading To Be Frank, including humorous correspondence with George Bernard Shaw and George Santayana, a fascinating anecdote about knocking on the White House door when on a Grand Tour of America in 1886 and visiting with President Grover Cleveland (“whom I rather liked”) and his...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,264 | 0,118 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».