The advancement of the theory of democracy in the late XX century: foreign historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
актуальность статьи определяется современной востребованностью теории демократизации как в России, так и в большинстве стран мира. Целью статьи является раскрытие восприятия американской стратегии «распространения демократии» представителями научного сообщества различных государств. Не претендуя на полный охват проблематики продвижения демократии американского образца в различные регионы мира, автор исследовал ряд общетеоретических вопросов по данной теме. Кроме того, рассматривается философское обоснование демократического процесса ведущими учеными конца ХХ – начала ХХI в., исследуется перспективность «распространения демократии» во внезападные сообщества. В качестве вывода по теме рассматривается вопрос о стабильности завоеваний демократии. В статье проанализированы работы как видных ученых (Ф. Фукуяма, С. Хантингтон, Ю. Хабермас), так и менее известных представителей научного сообщества. При этом в исследовании использованы работы ученых из разных стран: США, Канады, Великобритании, ФРГ, Израиля, Японии, Туниса, Индии. Статья может представлять интерес как для ученых, преподавателей и студентов, так и для политических функционеров, заинтересованных в продвижении и расширении демократического процесса. the relevance of the article is determined by the modern demand for the theory of democratization, both in Russia and in most countries of the world. The aim of the article is to reveal the perception of the American strategy of “distribution of democracy” by representatives of the scientific community of different States. Without claiming to cover the full range of problems of promoting democracy of the American model in different regions of the world, the article investigates a number of General theoretical issues on this topic. In addition, the philosophical justification of the democratic process by leading scientists of the late XX – early XXI centuries is considered, the prospects of “distribution of democracy” into sudden communities are explored. As a conclusion on the topic the question of the stability of the gains of democracy is considered. The article analyzes the works of prominent scientists (F. Fukuyama, S. Huntington, J. Habermas), and less famous representatives of the scientific community. In this exploration there are works of scientists from different countries: USA, Canada, UK, Germany, Israel, Japan, Tunisia, India. The article may be of interest for scientists, teachers and students, as well as for political functionaries interested in promoting and expanding the democratic process.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".