Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fifth chapter documents the active growth during the first two decades of the twentieth century of a British ‘national’ eugenics initiated by Francis Galton and the formation of a transnational eugenics movement that spread rapidly around the world, including to Russia. The infiltration of eugenics (in its Anglo-American ‘eugenics,’ French ‘eugénnétique,’ and German ‘Rassenhygiene’ versions) into Russian professional and popular discourse on human reproduction, heredity, development, and evolution became the major stimulus for the ‘resurrection’ of Florinskii’s long-forgotten work in the new, Soviet Russia that emerged out of the firestorms of World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the ensuing Civil War, which engulfed the former empire from 1914 through 1921. Mikhail Volotskoi, an anthropologist and a founding member of the Russian Eugenics Society established in Moscow in 1920, discovered, actively popularized, and in 1926 issued a new edition of Florinskii’s treatise. For Volotskoi, this tract was more than a historical curiosity. He found in Florinskii’s book a model and justification for what, in contrast to Galton’s ‘bourgeois’ eugenics, he saw as a ‘proletarian’ eugenics. Building on Florinskii’s ideas, he advanced a pointed ‘Marxist’ critique of Galtonian eugenics and its numerous followers in Russia and elsewhere. Volotskoi elaborated a concept of ‘bio-social’ eugenics and launched several research projects inspired by Florinskii’s notion of ‘conditions conducive’ to either perfection or degeneration, investigating the ‘eugenic’ effects of various factors, ranging from occupational hazards to women’s fashion. In contrast to the first publication of Florinskii’s book, the new edition did not go unnoticed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".