Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the problem of preserving, supporting and developing collectivism as a traditional spiritual and moral value. In modern society the principles of individualism have become the normative basis, i.e. the primary pursuit of private rather than group interests, thus the understanding of the phenomenon and concept of collectivism as historical and outdated has become widespread. The author shows that this idea does not correspond to contemporary reality and does not meet the challenges of the current time. On a theoretical level, collectivism and individualism are not independent entities. There is a certain balance between them, corresponding to the adaptive needs to the situation of a particular society at a particular time. The confrontation of the two systems in the 20th century significantly changed the balance between collectivism and individualism in favor of the latter. Despite the naturalization of individualistic discourse, this shift was not a foregone conclusion, but was created. The article consistently addresses three subjects: the relationship between the concepts of collectivism and individualism in the perspective of social theory in the second half of the 20th century; the foundations of capitalist individualism; finally, to the time and place for modern collectivism that arise from the imbalance between collectivism and individualism. The individualism as a basis of modern capitalism turns out to be contradictory for the very existence of society, its harmonious development and the achievement of those goals (free self-realization) that are declared as the main ones. The current situation opens up opportunities for a conscious appeal to the values of collectivism, which transform from historical to modern and provide the person with the opportunity to self-express.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".