Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perhaps no aspect of Tolstoy's vast oeuvre is more complicated or controversial than his spirituality. His large fictional narratives from Childhood through Anna Karenina derive much of their charm and a great deal of their intellectual intensity from his characters' agonized searches for the meaning of life. And from 1879 to his death in 1910 Tolstoy concentrated his attention almost exclusively on spiritual matters. His so-called “spiritual writings” – the “religious philosophical tracts” of the 1880s and 1890s, the compendia of 1903–10, and various fictional narratives, including the last great novel Resurrection – spelled out his views on such questions as the ethical content and truth of Christianity, the shortcomings of the Orthodox Church in Russia, the arbitrariness and violence of the Russian state, the hypocrisy and corruption of Russian society, the spiritual bankruptcy of modern ideologies, the meaning of life and death for ordinary Russians, and the common legacy of major world religions. Given the comprehensiveness of his spiritual vision, none of the “vexed questions” haunting Russian public life escaped his attention, yet his answers to these questions, expressed with his trademark erudition and clarity, engendered bitter disagreement. Secular readers like the novelist Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev condemned Tolstoy's spiritual writings for their “reliance on false premises” and their “dark negation of everything vital in human life.” On the other hand, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church excommunicated Tolstoy in February 1901 for denying eleven Christian dogmas, including the existence of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth of Mary, and the efficacy of the sacraments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".