MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28213658 · doi:10.1007/s10286-017-0407-9

如何对待马克思恩格斯的“跨越论”——关于跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”问题的思考

2007· article· zh· W28213658 on OpenAlexfundno aff
孙来斌

Bibliographic record

Venue当代世界与社会主义 · 2007
Typearticle
Languagezh
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

近几十年来,马克思、恩格斯晚年提出的俄国在一定条件下可以不通过资本主义制度卡夫丁峡谷的设想(简称“跨越论”),成为国内外马克思主义研究长盛不衰的热点、只有坚持理论联系实际的学风,破除对马克思主义的错误的、歪曲的、教争式的理解,才能科学阐释“跨越论”的理论内涵,发挥其指导作用。

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue当代世界与社会主义Same topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207