Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter argues that through his development of historical materialism, Marx put forward a conception of working class politics that offered the potential to realize the project of true human emancipation while articulating an understanding of history as a process of social evolution through the social relations of class exploitation. In his work, Marx both took up the ideas of historical social theory, as primarily developed by liberal theorists from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, and developed in opposition to these ideas his own approach to human social development. On the one hand, liberal social theorists in England and France put forward a conception of history as “progress”: both unilinear, and impelled by fundamentally natural processes such as the division of labour. On the other, Hegel’s philosophical embrace of liberal ideas articulated an idealist process of realizing the human telos through the dialectical development of property relations, individualism, and state mediation. This was, on the whole, a more nuanced and comprehensive conception of human history, though it was explicitly Eurocentric as well as idealist. Against both such formulations, Marx sought to conceive historical development through the social property relations of class exploitation: materialist without being naturalistic, and dialectical without being idealist. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".