Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classic vision that speaks of a very clear initial prevalence of neutralism within the ranks of Italian Catholicism appears to be fairly well founded. It should however be considered, and this essay endeavours to investigate precisely this evolution, how interventionism took root in that world through different channels and with different cultural and intellectual lenses. On the one hand, the conservatism of some circles that were close to the government and to the Salandra’s liberal party was an important factor (although not all Catholic conservatives were initially interventionists). These positions were partly already in tune with the nationalist group’s way of reasoning, in a spiritualist, anti-Giolitti and anti-materialist key. On the other hand, a series of groups close to official Catholicism inclined, in a substantially passive and unprepared way, towards an interventionist position that simply adjusted itself to the government’s options (the so-called ‘conditioned’ neutrality, linked to homeland interests, in the line of a certain Guelph-rooted patriotism). Finally, small groups of Christian democratic matrix adopted instead democratic interventionist schemes, interpreting the war as an occasion for waging a battle against the reactionary conservatism of the Central Empires and for achieving national demands, in their illusory hope of a spontaneous convergence of movements on a European scale. Starting from these different ways of cultural reasoning, many sectors of Italian Catholicism found themselves close to rather similar interventionist instances, shared finally in about May 1915.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".