Bureaucrats and Revolutionary State-Building in Ireland and Russia. Was Weber Right?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Weber argued that bureaucrats serve whoever holds power even in the case of revolution or enemy occupation because they are more concerned with their jobs, salaries and pensions than with political ideas. His hypothesis has yet to be satisfactorily tested, however, and any such project would have to include all states that emerged from revolutions. As a contribution towards such an examination this paper reviews state building in nationalist Ireland and Bolshevik Russia to determine whether the behaviour of old-regime administrators in those countries proves or disproves Weber's claim. Résumé.Weber avançait que les bureaucrates servent quiconque est au pouvoir, même en cas de révolution ou d'occupation ennemie, parce qu'ils se soucient davantage de leurs emplois, de leurs salaires et de leurs pensions que d'idées politiques. Son hypothèse n'a cependant jamais été testée de manière satisfaisante et tout projet de ce genre devrait nécessairement inclure tous les États qui sont issus de révolutions. En guise de contribution à un tel examen, cet article examine la création de l'État dans l'Irlande nationaliste et la Russie bolchévique pour déterminer si le comportement des fonctionnaires de l'ancien régime de ces pays confirme ou réfute l'allégation de Weber.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".