Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most literary critics divide Tolstoy’s long and productive career into three periods, with the main one stretching from 1863, just after his marriage, when he settled into writing the novel that became War and Peace , to 1877, when he finished Anna Karenina . From this perspective, the monumental novels dwarf everything else: Tolstoy’s early works are seen as training for the Herculean task of writing those epics; his later works, with some exceptions, are dismissed as the suspect output of his restless old age, when Tolstoy was seeking ever new ways of using his pen to design the kingdom of God, to compose “for the people,” and, in general, to give answers to impossible questions (among them, “What is Art?”; “What Then ShallWe Do?”; “How Much Land Does a Man Need?”; “Why Do People Stupefy Themselves?”). Other critics who take a less literary point of view have shown greatest reverence for what Tolstoy did and wrote in his later period, after the “crisis” and “conversion” of the late 1870s, when being a humanitarian, vegetarian, wise man, moralist, and activist was more important to him than being the author of literature. The elderly Tolstoy himself tried to disavow his former selves, not just the Tolstoy who killed men in war, or the Tolstoy who committed adultery, but also the Tolstoy who composed works of literature for the educated classes in a vain desire for glory and profit. Because Tolstoy’s middle and late periods attract so much attention, his early works have to a degree been undervalued and neglected. In studying these works, however, we come to see, perhaps in its purest form, what is unique about Tolstoy’s writing. We see the stylistic and thematic originality that commanded the attention of his first readers, who were convinced, from the outset, that they were beholding a major new talent.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".