Rethinking the Gulag: Identities, Sources, Legacies By AlanBarenberg, Emily D.Johnson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2022, 320 pp. $35.00. ISBN 978‐0‐253‐05961‐1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This model anthology offers new insights into identities, sources, and legacies of the camps, and the inclusion of section commentaries places the individual chapters in dialogue with one another.The volume is intentionally interdisciplinary, with contributions from scholars of history, literature, geography, and sociology.Section one, "Identities," focuses on under-studied prisoner populations, with chapters by Jeffrey Hardy (on Orthodox priests and believers in the Solovki camps of the 1920s), Emily Johnson (on the use of non-Russian language in camp correspondence), and Gavin Slade (on the society formed by hardened criminals within the camps), with commentary by Lynne Viola.Hardy demonstrates the remarkable degree of religious autonomy that clergy detained in Solovki had in the 1920s and highlights some of the disputes between religious leaders in the camp, including over how to relate to the Bolshevik regime.His chapter emphasizes the ad hoc nature of the Gulag's early development.Johnson's exploration of languages of prisoner correspondence reveals one way ethnic minorities navigated their time in the camps, pointing both to assimilation (improved use of the Russian language, for example) and to small acts of resistance (occasional phrases in native languages).Despite the book's title, Rethinking the Gulag, Slade's chapter is one of the few that asks us to reconceptualize the camp system.Slade provocatively argues that the practices of the camp criminal population created a "reputation system" that was a "form of prisoner self-governance" rather than only a "subculture" of the system (pp.84, 67).Slade then links this political culture of the Gulag prisoners to the organized crime of the late 1980s and 1990s.In a sense, then, Slade's chapter is as much about "legacy" as "identity."Viola's commentary acts like a discussant position in a conference, bringing out significant points and offering suggestions for areas that could be explored ("Yet the study of gender in the Gulag still awaits its historian" [p.96]).She finds common ground between the three chapters, noting that all three reveal differences between central policies and the situation on the ground.Section two, "Sources," features work by Mikhail Nakonechnyi (on early medical release and mortality) and by two scholars who apply digital methods to analyze sources: Susan Grunwald (on German POWs in the Soviet Union) and Sarah J. Young (analyzing word use in memoirs).Nakonechnyi's chapter is both a confirmation and refutation of Golfo Alexopoulos's recent monograph on mortality in the camps.Like Alexopoulos, Nakonechnyi confirms (using central and local sources from different ministries and departments, including the Ministry of Justice and the Procuracy) that officials used early medical release to hide or downplay camp mortality rates.However, he sees "the central intervention not as sustained collusion but as a situational cover-up" (p.122).He also argues, contra
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,007 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».