MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209453425 · doi:10.18254/s258770110015004-6

The problem of constructing the ideal in the moderate and radical traditions of Russian liberalism at the end of the 19th century

2021· article· en· W3209453425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Veronika Sharova

Bibliographic record

VenuePolylogos · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSociopolitical Dynamics in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeal (ethics)LiberalismPoliticsQuarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)JournalismPolitical scienceClassical liberalismSociologySocial scienceLawPolitical economyAestheticsPhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the formation of the ideal in the moderate and radical traditions of Russian liberalism in the last quarter of the 19th century. This period is fundamentally important in the evolution of liberal thought and movement: at this time, the liberal policies of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century were formed. The problem of constructing a socio-political ideal allows us to show polarization within the liberal tradition. Based on the analysis of political journalism and documents of personal origin, the author comes to the conclusion that the moderate liberal tradition followed the idea of personal improvement and was guided by the development of the existing political system. The radicals highlighted the social ideal, assumed a change in the political system and did not exclude the possibility of revolution. The research results can be used both in historical research and in other humanities.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.033
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolylogos→Same topicSociopolitical Dynamics in Russia→French-language works237,207→