Of Phagocytes and Men: Tolstoy's Response to Mechnikov and the Religious Purpose of Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the intellectual ties between Lev Tolstoy and the Nobel Prize winning pathologist Ilya Mechnikov. In Tolstoy's essays, letters, and diary entries he was notoriously critical of contemporary scientific study and its lack of a moral component. Beginning in the late 1880s he engaged in a virtually unknown polemic with Mechnikov about science and religion that culminated in a face-to-face meeting the year before Tolstoy's death. Despite Tolstoy's expressed disdain for Mechnikov's theories, in his final novel, Resurrection (1899), Tolstoy used Mechnikov's phagocytic theory as a metaphoric basis for the novel's moral philosophy. Moving beyond his earlier family ideal, he made phagocytes the model for a broader and more impersonal ideal of human unity. Thus, in Resurrection Tolstoy found a way to give moral meaning to science, just as he had called for in his journalistic writing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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".