Bibliographic record
Abstract
190 Reviews c:\users\ken\documents\type3402\rj 3402 050 red.docx 2015-02-04 9:19 PM LETTER FROM THE AUTHOR Jyotish Ch. Basak jyotishcbasak@yahoo.co.in have come across a review of my book Bertrand Russell’s Socio-Political Ideas in Russell 30 (2010): 90–3, and available on the web at http:// dx.doi.org/10.15173/russell.v30i1.2183. The book was written keeping in mind some facts that I found widespread in various corners of my country, i.e. India. Usually what is seen, so far as I am aware, in this part of the globe, is that people know or take an interest in Bertrand Russsell’s contribution in the areas of analytic philosophy, epistemology , metaphysics, logic, etc. I have not found a significant number of persons of the mainly younger generation taking an interest in his socio-political philosophy. It is this fact that goaded me to write that book. This was stated in the very first page of the flap: “the present work is an attempt to bring various fabrics of Russell’s socio-political thought in one book.” Hence it was never claimed in the book that it was a scholarly book. The number of writings of Russell in this area was vast. Hence most of the time I tried to concentrate my attention on original sources. This was admitted on page x. About grammatical and spelling mistakes the review will definitely help me. On the point mentioned by the reviewer about the content of page 7, I would like to state that it has been clearly mentioned that “In his Autobiography Russell mentioned....” Hence I acknowledged that it was taken from his biography and the portion that was taken verbatim was given reference no. 3. The acknowledgement of Ronald Jager’s point was made on page 89. The reviewer did not find anything worthy in my book. With due respect to him I would like to state that a man of his stature may not find anything important in my venture. However, I got plenty of calls from many college teachers of my country who opined that it helped them immensely to introduce them to Russell’s contribution in this area. To my mind, it proves that I at least gave them a glimpse of Russell’s socio-political thought in miniature. In the end I would like to record I am indebted to the reviewer, Peter Stone, for reviewing my book and publishing the review in a premier journal. f= ...
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.209 | 0.181 |
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".