The Theme of Happiness and British Utilitarianism in Russian Thought, from the 1860s to the Early 1880s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The theme of happiness is a neglected topic in studies of Russian thought, in part because the Russian intelligentsia came to be associated with the ethos of self-abnegation and sacrifice in the name of the common good. It is little known that the spread of utilitarian philosophy in Russia in the early 1860s sparked a debate on the notion of happiness (individual and collective) between the left intelligentsia and their opponents on the conservative spectrum. The publication of the Russian translations of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the late 1860s provided a new spur to the controversy and gave it a more philosophical flavor. While the intelligentsia thinkers asserted the right to happiness as one of the fundamental human needs, rooted in the very essence of human nature, the conservative writers contested both the idea of happiness as a right and the notion that happiness is the purpose of life. This article examines the intellectual and contextual development of the theme of happiness in Russian thought throughout the 1860s–1880s.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".