MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516157604 · doi:10.1163/18763316-04302002

The Reception of J.S. Mill’s Feminist Thought in Imperial Russia

2016· article· en· W2516157604 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian History · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillPeriod (music)Context (archaeology)PoliticsHistorySociologyPolitical scienceLawArtAestheticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The essay explores the publication and reception of J. S. Mill’s The Subjection of Women in Imperial Russia. Translated in 1869, the same year that the book came out in Britain, The Subjection of Women found a wide audience in Russia, attracting both feminist and conservative readers, many of whom had already been familiar with Mill’s name after the publication of his Principles of Political Economy in Russia nine years earlier. Until the end of Imperial period, the book was published in four translations and six editions, some of which were accompanied by extensive editorial introductions and followed by reviews in the leading Russian journals. The essay analyzes conservative and feminist responses to Mill’s ideas in the context of Russian intellectual and socio-political developments in the second half of the nineteenth century. It also highlights the similarities and differences in the reception of Mill’s feminist thought in Russia and in England.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it