Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lenin received a severe shock in 1914 when the main parties of the socialist Second International supported the war effort of their respective governments. But the shock did not lead to his rejection of the prewar Marxist orthodoxy but rather to an outraged affirmation of this orthodoxy against those who (in Lenin’s view) had betrayed it. Lenin’s rhetorical stance can therefore be described as ‘aggressive unoriginality’. Lenin insisted that the key themes of ‘Left Zimmerwald’—the name given to the socialist current of which he was the principal spokesman from 1914 to 1916—were based squarely on the prewar consensus of ‘revolutionary Marxists’, particularly as expressed by Karl Kautsky. Among these themes are the underlying idea of a revolutionary situation, the assumption that the war had created a revolutionary situation, and the claim that ‘socialist patriotism’ during the war represented the triumph of prewar opportunism. Lénine a reçu un choc sévère en 1914 quand les principaux partis de la Deuxième Internationale socialiste ont soutenu l’effort de guerre de leurs gouvernements respectifs. Toutefois, le choc ne l’a pas amené à rejeter l’orthodoxie marxiste de l’avant-guerre mais plutôt à affirmer outrageusement cette orthodoxie contre ceux qui, de son point de vue, l’avaient trahie. La posture rhétorique de Lénine peut ainsi être décrite comme ‘banalement agressive.’ Lénine soutenait que les thèmes clés de la ‘Gauche de Zimmerwald’ – le nom donné au courant socialiste dont il était le principal porte-parole entre 1914 et 1916 – étaient fondamentalement basés sur le consensus d’avant-guerre des ‘Marxistes révolutionnaires,’ comme pouvait l’exprimer en particulier Karl Kautsky. Parmi ces thèmes figurent l’idée sous-jacente d’une situation révolutionnaire, l’hypothèse que cette situation révolutionnaire a été créée par la guerre, et l’argument selon lequel le ‘patriotisme socialiste’ d’alors correspondait au triomphe de l’opportunisme de l’avant-guerre.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".