The First Century of Getting Used to Kant's Ideas in Russian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research is based on a little-known essay by Evgeny Alexandrovich Bobrov (1867-1933), a philosopher and a remarkable representative of the Russian university professorship of the late XIX - first quarter of the XX centuries. The essay is based on a public report that Bobrov delivered at the celebrations at the Warsaw Imperial University dedicated to the centenary of Kant's death. In 1904, solemn meetings with speeches and philosophical discussions were held at Russian universities around this memorial date. The usual practice of that time was then to publish the texts of speeches in scientific journals and individual books, which provided access to the text to the general public. Thanks to this tradition, historians of philosophy have the opportunity to penetrate into the philosophical moods and thematic palette of that time around the name of Kant and his ideas. Our choice fell on the speech of E. A. Bobrov, because in his speech he shows for his listeners/readers a retrospective of the adaptation of Kant’s philosophy in the Russian universities community. Symbolically, the century after Kant’s death can rather be considered as the birth of Kantian in the Russian school of philosophy. The central part of our research is devoted to this retrospective, as it was analyzed by Russian philosophers in 1904. Who philosophers were considered supporters of Kant’s philosophy, and who stood in opposition. In the final part, we considered it appropriate to draw attention to the fact that Kantianism was actively developing in the next decade of 1904-1914. But the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 influenced the tone of philosophical discussions around Kant’s ideas. The topic of “overcoming Kantianism” becomes one of the directions in the criticism of Kant.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".