MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2321800885 · doi:10.1080/00085006.2011.11092688

Review Article

2011· article· en· W2321800885 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Teresa Polowy

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEastern European Communism and Reforms
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCommunismOpposition (politics)IdeologyReading (process)Political scienceEconomic historySoviet unionLawHistoryPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)......1August 1991 saw the stunning collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid disintegration of the Communist party and all its institutions including those that controlled literature. Twenty years later in 2011, the market drives Russian book publication and Russian publishers systematically employ advertisement agencies and PR firms to promote their products. The Soviet claim to being the most country in the world has re -emerged in post-Soviet Russia as the countiy that consumes the most television programming. It is heavily ironic that since the fall of the Soviet Union, reading has become an almost irrelevant activity; prior to 1 99 1 , the act of reading was of tremendous significance since reading samizdat or tamizdat, or even difficult-to-obtain Soviet publications of fiction and poetiy, often represented cogent private and individual acts of opposition to the prevalent ideology. Twenty years ago, there were about 10,000 members in the bloated Union of Soviet Writers and the literaiy profession was profitable, prestigious, and privileged. Today, many writers are not closely affiliated with any union or association and most writers in Russia have to actively supplement their income since it is very difficult, just as in the West, to make a living solely through creative writing. For example, those writers whose works have been translated into various languages receive foreign royalties and invitations from abroad to lecture or make guest appearances. Others have worked for considerable periods and decent salaries at foreign universities (e.g., Tat'iana Tolstaia in the United States, Anatolii Kim in South Korea) before returning to Russia. Many writers work industiy jobs in editorial offices, some engage in ghost-writing, and some noted authors, for example Dmitry Bykov and Mikhail Shishkin, write works of serious alongside works of mass appeal that occupy what critic Sergei Chuprinin termed in 2004, the space of middle literature.2 In 1991, as a result of glasnost', Russian writing was just emerging from the rigours of Soviet-era censorship. Twenty years on, many writers lament the censorship imposed by the market economy and the whims of the marketplace in which has become just another commodity. Rosalind Marsh acknowledges this concern, but also nuances it, observing that: 'economic censorship' has had a profound effect on the choice of manuscripts which have been published and reviewed in Russia since the fall of communism, neither fiction nor literary criticism has been subjected to official political censorship [. . .].3 Possible reasons why control over is absent in Russia today, while control over radio, television, and the press is very much present, will be suggested below.While Russian is hardly dead, as Viktor Erofeev pronounced it in his celebrated and oft-referenced article of 1991, Pominki po sovetskoi literature [A Wake for Soviet Literature],4 it is transformed - indeed is constantly transforming - in an ongoing search for its place within Russia' s new consumerist and entrepreneurial reality. Russian twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed is very much a living organism moving and stretching in multiple directions, in a state of constant motion, and changing even as this overview is being written. Authors are writing, competing for prizes, and, in every way, trying to adapt to a still-new political, economic, and cultural environment. While this state of change and diversity is seen as destabilizing by some cultural commentators, exhilarating by others, what is certain is that such continuous change is exceptional in a nation in which for centuries, stood at the centre of cultural life and was expected to play the role of prophet and omniscient commentator, and give effective expression to national ideals and identity. Two decades after the demise of the Soviet Union, in which played the aforementioned roles in highly significant ways, it no longer bears this burden so obviously or so willingly. …

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,673
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,960

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0060,003
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,3270,171

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Slavonic PapersMême sujetEastern European Communism and ReformsTravaux en français237 207