Cross-Disciplinary Mixing and Modeling Strategies in the Study of Russia and Russians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This volume is a compilation of papers from the conference entitled Kultur, Sprache, held at the Wirtschaftuniversitat Wien in December of 1999. Thirty of the papers given during this conference are represented here, twenty written in German, nine in Russian, and one in English. The title words notwithstanding, the topics covered by these articles are hardly restricted to questions of culture, language or economics. While those three disciplines predominate, these articles also delve into questions of sociology, politics, philosophy, art, geography, biology, and history, borrowing and mixing quite liberally from various academic areas. What is striking is the extent to which many of these writers feel free to step outside the investigative media typical for their field and to employ the constructs, theories, and filters of one academic discipline to the examination of phenomena associated with a different discipline. When done badly, this leads simply to specious analogs and awkward comparisons, but when done well, this forced and jarring shift in perspective, not unlike Brecht's V-Effekt or the ostranenie of the Russian Formalists, can take us a step closer to a reality otherwise obscured by the comfortable routine of the usual methods of analysis. While there are individual examples of the aforementioned clumsiness, for the most part the many articles of this volume engage in such scholarly cross-pollination with a marked degree of success. Since it is not possible in reviewing a volume with so many articles to provide an in-depth review of each article, we will instead attempt to find common themes and in so doing provide a profile for the entire volume, touching on as many of the articles as possible.The question of money and language is central to a number of the contributions. In the volume's opening article Von der Sprache des Geldes zur Schrift der Assignaten: Prolegomena zu einer russischen Mediengeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts Jurij Murasov examines the close relationship between paper currency and the written word, noting that, in contrast to barter transactions and spoken communication, respectively, they operate with signs and symbols, forming a symbolic unity between that which is absent and that which is present. Thus, human speech, captured in the form of writing, can free one from the need to be present in order to effect communication, while currency, as an abstract representation of goods and property, facilitates the easier exchange of wealth and goods, thereby opening up new possibilities in trade and economics. By removing temporal and spatial restrictions, both information and wealth become not only more portable, but also more quantifiable, in the case of the latter allowing time to figure in profit and loss calculations, with clear implications for concepts such as simple and compound interest rates.Dmitri Zakharine's Okonomie des Ausdrucks: Zum Wandel der russischen Konversationskultur im 18.-19. Jahrhundert begins the analysis of the relationship between money and writing by acknowledging the postmodernist take on the adage that money enslaves and language liberates, namely the postmodernist insistence that language also can be seen as enslaving in so far as it has a limiting function. He draws parallels between money and speech, on the one hand, and credit on the other, noting, as does Murasov, their symbolic nature vis-a-vis that which they represent. He notes also the use of falling intonation and other auditory phenomena (coughing, sighing, swallowing, etc.) as indicators of worth, and highlights the connections between semantic drift in language and the value drift sometimes seen in currency. In commenting on the manifestation of national character in language, he juxtaposes the language etiquette of France with the lack thereof in Germany (with the famous quote attributed to Goethe Im Deutschen lugt man, wenn man hoflich ist,) claiming that the French use the empty compliment as symbolic capital, as opposed to the Germans, for whom ich kusse Ihnen die Hand is nothing by an empty gesture. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».