MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366809596 · doi:10.1353/rss.2010.0019

New Essays on Russell

2010· article· en· W4366809596 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefan Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClassicsCLARITYVariety (cybernetics)GriffinHistoryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

September 24, 2010 (10:17 pm) C:\Users\Milt\Desktop\backup copy of Ken's G\WPData\TYPE3001\russell 30,1 032 red corrected.wpd Reviews 81 1 The Wrst one was Bertrand Russell on Nuclear War, Peace, and Language (Westport, ct: Praeger, 2002). Reviewed by David Blitz in this journal, 23 (2003): 176–82. 2 The essay Wrst appeared in Russell 25 (2005): 107–39. NEW ESSAYS ON RUSSELL Stefan Andersson stefankarlandersson@live.com Alan Schwerin (under the auspices of the Bertrand Russell Society), ed. Russell Revisited: Critical ReXections on the Thought of Bertrand Russell. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008. Pp. ix, 158. isbn 978-1-84718-494-8. This is Alan Schwerin’s second edited collection of essays on Bertrand Russell .1 As in the Wrst, he has provided us with an indexed smorgasbord of nine essays on a variety of subjects, but this time he has been less ambitious by not adding an introduction himself and engaging some less meritorious authors. On the other hand, the subjects chosen by the amateurs (in the sense of lover, admirer, and devotee) Russell scholars are refreshingly original, interesting and executed with a simplicity and clarity that I Wnd lacking in some of the essays of the bona Wde professors and graduate students of philosophy. The Wrst essay, “Bertrand Russell and Eugenics”,2 is by Stephen Heathorn. He has published a book and over twenty peer-reviewed articles. He is also responsible for co-editing three volumes of Russell’s Collected Papers. In other words, he is a well-qualiWed researcher, and I can understand that the editor has September 24, 2010 (10:17 pm) C:\Users\Milt\Desktop\backup copy of Ken's G\WPData\TYPE3001\russell 30,1 032 red corrected.wpd 82 Reviews chosen to put his essay Wrst, since it’s the best, all things considered. Heathorn starts his interesting, well-researched and well-documented essay with a short introduction to how the connotations of the term “eugenics” have developed from the time when Francis Galton coined it in 1883 to the present time, when most people tend to associate it with the Nazis’ attempts to purify the Aryan race by killing, imprisoning or, in the best case, just sterilizing people who were deemed unWt to reproduce. But before Hitler entered the international scene in the 1930s, there was a period when “the ideas behind eugenics were both scientiWcally respectable and acceptedby intellectuals from across the entire political spectrum” (p. 1). Bertrand Russell was one of them, and this essay is an account of his public engagement with eugenics from the 1890s through to the post-World War ii years. The main thesis is that his “belief in the potential of eugenics for bettering society was increasingly outweighed, over time, by his fear of the uses to which eugenics would be put” (p. 2). As Heathorn later shows, Russell didn’t have much to say about the topic publicly after the mid-1930s, which doesn’t mean that he had stopped thinking about it. This is evident, for example, from his private correspondence with the biologist Julian Huxley in the 1960s. Russell Wrst came to eugenics by reading Francis Galton in the 1890s. His interest was motivated by both general intellectual curiosity and personal concerns . In 1894 he married Alys Pearsall Smith, something that his grandmother was dead against. When she couldn’t stop her grandson from marrying the older Quaker woman (she was his senior by Wve years), she insisted that they should not try to have any children on the grounds that there was a prevalence of mental illness among both families’ ancestorsz—zan argument that the young aristocrat could not dismiss. Although preoccupied with mathematics and political theory, he kept up to date with developments in genetic research from the late 1890s. There was an obvious connection between his interest in politics and eugenics. Many Edwardians feared the negative consequences of the so-called “diTerential birth rate”, i.e. that the poor sections of the population reproduced much faster than the wealthy. That, in the long run, could have disastrous eTects on the stability and progress of society. It seemed to be the case...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.014

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207