Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section I in Goerdeler's memorandum ‘The Aim’ is headed ‘The Totality of Policy’ ( Die Totalität der Politik ) in reference to General Erich Ludendorff's doctrine of Total War. Much like Moltke's 1940–1941 drafts, but in rich and emotional language unlike Moltke's dry, legal idiom, the memorandum addresses the fundamental issues facing human society and the state – the natural environment; provision for material and spiritual needs; freedom of scientific enquiry; freedom of religion, law, and justice; patriotism; human virtues; and the grand principle of subordination to divine guidance. Policy ( Politik ) must encompass all of these premises, and it must seek a balance of interests instead of an unscrupulous use of power. Policy must also remain in control during war: ‘There is not a totality of war as such, there is only a totality of policy in war as in peace’. The discourse about Total War in the sense that in war any means were legitimate had been possible in the last fifty years only because policy had failed. The aim was the balance of peace. These principles are followed by a first historical tour d'horizon , describing the policies of Bismarck's successors as having abandoned the comprehensive meaning of policy, of having become ‘naïve, superficial and frivolous’, and generally describing human affairs as characterised by gains in intellectual liberty on the one hand and loss of humility leading to hubris on the other hand. Divine and natural laws must be acknowledged and honoured. Foreign-policy and domestic-policy aims must be based upon them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.005 |
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".