Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The emergence of modern science in Russia was a belated and rather abrupt development, unfolding rapidly in the 1860s and significantly challenging Russian traditional culture rooted in the Orthodox religion. As in Western Europe, the spread of scientific ideas that increasingly undermined the religious worldview was controversial and unsettling to many conservative thinkers. In Russia, however, controversy around the religious implications of science was more ideologically charged and complex because it involved the old, waxing question of Russia’s relationship with the West. While Dostoevskii’s attitude towards science has been a subject of long-standing debate, many questions remain overlooked and some are highly controversial. Dostoevskii’s reaction to J. S. Mill (mediated by Strakhov) is one important aspect that has been overlooked in current historiography. Mill’s Logic, widely known to European readers, played a significant role not only in creating the modern philosophy of science but also in stimulating the debate on the relationship between science and religion. By placing the views of Strakhov and Dostoevskii into a European intellectual context, this essay offers a re-evaluation of the theme of science in the works of the two most prominent conservative thinkers in nineteenth-century Russia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".