Ex-Socialists as Human Resources for the Communist Party between February and October Revolutions (March — October 1917)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century, political parties became the main actors for Russia’s social and economic processes and events. During the last three decades, they have been the focus of scholars’ efforts since classified sources of the Soviet period were opened for public access at the end of the 20th century. Intense scholarship shaped two main approaches to the topic. One focuses on each political party individually, and the other focuses on interactions between all of them. The second approach, even considering its merits, remains limited because relationships are explained mainly through competition between political parties, whereas in reality, connections were more diverse. This article makes a first attempt to show at personal and group levels the transition of former socialists to the Bolshevik party between the February and October revolutions. It identifies specific party leaders and groups that changed their political views and positions; establishes the time and motives for their break with their former parties to join the Bolsheviks; and clarifies the impact of their joining the Bolshevik party. Based on an analysis of questionnaires of delegates who participated in the Sixth Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks), the article concludes that by the end of the summer of 1917, the Bolshevik political elite consisted of almost 43 % of former socialists, among whom there was a large proportion of professional revolutionaries. Such human resources, mostly consisting of “left-socialists,” contributed to the radicalization of the RSDLP(b), reorienting the political struggle from democratic and political methods to violence and militarism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".