Особенности генезиса и формирования консерватизма в странах Европы
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the key stages of European conservatism development in modern and contemporary history. The author draws the reader’s attention to the traditional, protective, reform, neoconservative and other versions of conservative ideology in the above mentioned period of time. Special attention is paid to British conservatism, which has played an important part in the development of this ideology as a whole. The author emphasizes that the formation of conservative ideology has been closely connected with the political and economic development of the European countries. The paper analysed the works of the fathers of European conservatism – E. Burke, J. de Maistre and L. de Bonald – as well as of B. Disraeli, R. Salisbury, W. Churchill and others. These intellectuals formulated the traditional concept of conservatism, which was formed shortly after the events of the Great French Revolution. They stressed the need for a sustainable development of the state and society, based on traditions, order, law, religion, family and moral values. It should be noted that conservatism as a political ideology was formed at the turn of the18th and 19th centuries as a response of feudal aristocracy to the social ideas of the Enlightenment and the experience of the Great French Revolution. In addition, the author compares the European, American and Canadian versions of conservatism and shows how conservative ideology is related to the needs of the modern world. For example, the Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. The Conservative Manifesto (D. Cameron) is compared with Stand Up for Canada. Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform (S. Harper). The author also introduces the term globalization conservatism, which is closely linked with the conservatives’ attempts to solve the global challenges of our age.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".