MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EUROPEAN ANARCHISM IN THE 1890S: WHY LABOR MATTERS IN CATEGORIZING ANARCHISM

2009· article· en· W2007979888 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorkingUSA · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnarchism and Radical Politics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndividualismAction (physics)Methodological individualismCommunismMovement (music)Collective actionSociologyDirect actionEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyAestheticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard typologies of anarchism are based on categories such as individualism and communism that refer to philosophical issues or to different models of the future society. Such categorizations project an image of anarchism as more concerned with abstract questions than with practical matters. However, they are misleading. Through a cross‐national analysis of three major European anarchist movements, Italian, Spanish, and French, around the 1890s, I show that the most fundamental issues that divided all these movements alike were tactical, not theoretical. They concerned participation in the labor movement, collective action, and organization. By revising standard categorizations along these lines, anarchism can be rescued from the stereotypical charge of irrationalism and shown to be a movement in rational search of the best means to achieve its ends.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it