Through the 21st century looking glass: Liberalism, democracy, and populism in a pre‐Yugoslav Serbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An often underrated but significant debate among Serbian intellectuals is how best to interpret Serbia's political development from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries. Conventional, mainstream understanding is that this period culminated in the golden era of Serbian democracy that lasted from 1903 to 1914. I identify this approach as a liberal‐national interpretation of this period. On their part, Serbian critical historians envision this period in terms of failed modernisation that led to the development of Serbian populism and ethnic nationalism. Even though these depictions involve opposing historical framings of Serbia's past, they both reproduce an ideological picture of the Serbian past rooted within a binary civic/ethnic nationalism framework that constrains analyses of this period to either a modernising civic era or a period that fostered the foundations for ethnic nationalism. Moreover, I argue that, at the discursive level, the debate is not about the past at all. It is primarily about interpreting the contemporary Serbian political system, the role Serbian intellectuals play in it, and whether successful democratisation in a Serbian society could be organised on the principles of further expansion, centralisation, and national homogenisation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".