MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994472077 · doi:10.1017/s0008423919000714

Un libéralisme bolchévique? Histoire conceptuelle du double pouvoir en Russie

2019· article· fr· W2994472077 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Sauvé

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Cet article retrace l'histoire du concept de « double pouvoir », qui désigne une situation transitoire où deux pouvoirs s'affrontent au sein d'une même société. Suivant une approche inspirée des réflexions de Reinhart Koselleck, nous montrons comment l'expérience particulière des bolchéviques en 1917, incorporée dans ce concept, nourrit les attentes des réformateurs libéraux russes au début des années 1990 et éclaire leurs choix stratégiques alors même qu'ils démantèlent le régime communiste. Ce faisant, nous restituons le mécanisme de cristallisation conceptuelle par le discours savant qui rend possible cette troublante filiation du bolchévisme vers le libéralisme en Russie.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicCommunism, Protests, Social MovementsFrench-language works237,207