Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romantic love, like many other kinds of love, appears to be just a relationship between two individuals, but upon closer analysis it is more than that. Love is a deeply social process. It is also more than a spontaneous neuro-biological impulse. Love involves conscious activity, both subjective and material. Love is a social process both at the level of human society and at the level of class society, including capitalism. Private property relations and related logics of accumulation in all forms of class society shape relations of love. Love in capitalism reproduces love with capitalism. Because love is social, it is political. It is political in part because it has a role to play in the fight against capitalism and in the construction of socialism. Love must be rescued both from the principle of love of two humans, as in romantic love in modern societies, and from the principle of love of all humans. In place of these principles, there is a need for new principles of love that promote or advocate love of class brothers and sisters, within the context of love of the struggle against class enemies, in a manner that does not ignore erotic love between individuals and that does not make exaggerated claims about the political power of love. A critical examination of love from the standpoint of materialist dialectics makes it possible to address the question what kind of love might exist under communism, and how it might be different from love under capitalism, and why?
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".