Bibliographic record
Abstract
What relevance, if any, does Trotskyism have to the contemporary left? 1 In Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain and The Twilight of World Trotskyism, John Kelly aims to make sense of what he views as the central paradox of Trotskyism.On the one hand, he rehearses the old cliché that Trotskyism is a sectarian disorder constituted through, as he puts it, an almost religious "attachment to elements of" a "doctrine" that is "largely impervious to empirical refutation or significant amendment"; on the other hand, he gives an account of how, despite this sectarian essence, some Trotskyist groups have proved to be not only "resilient" but also "influential" (ct, iii, 2, 12, 30, 80; twt, 19). 2 Kelly has a neat explanation for this paradox.Trotskyists have won influence within social movements and trade unions to the extent that they have 1.This essay extends criticisms I made of Kelly's understanding of Trotskyism in my "Theorising Trotskyism," Studies in Marxism 15 (2021): 120-129; see also John Kelly, "Response to Paul Blackledge," Studies in Marxism 15 (2021): 130-133.2. For dismissive criticisms of Trotskyism, see
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.015 |
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".