Науковець перед з’явою пам’яті
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The editorial board of Ukraina Moderna invited the Forum participants to reflect on questions concerning the roles and functions of scholars in memory studies; the possibility of analyzing “transnational” or “non-national” memory and the methodology behind such research; and an adequate assessment of the role of history in the contemporary social space. The majority of the Forum participants are in agreement that historical memory is a construct, in which personal and group experiences and political views interact. They also agree on the differences between “memory” and “history.” Ewa Domańska (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland) considers that contemporary memory studies are no longer simply about overcoming national, racial, or gender borders (queer memory) but about elucidating memory in the context of studying the specific features of people (and not just people). Thus, the set of problems relating to memory helps to break down the traditional anthropocentrism of historical studies. According to Bogumił Koss-Jewsiewicki (Université Laval, Quebec, Canada) memory is a contemporary reminder of past experiences that are important specifically today. At the same time, a historical event can spark different memories, each of which is “real,” if it presents the experiences of various people that are connected to that same event. Yulia Zerniy (National Institute for Strategic Studies, Kyiv, Ukraine) is convinced that for the national state, memory is an object of policies aimed at achieving social unity and the internal cohesion of a “national community.” In her view, the successful implementation of the Ukrainian national project stipulates a reappraisal of history and a decisive deconstruction of “imperialist-Soviet schemes.” According to Andrew S. Bergerson (University of Missouri, USA) the functioning of memory is crucial to leading a contemporary life, while reminiscences of the past can prompt us to taking responsibility in the present. Harald Binder (Center for Urban History of East Central Europe, Lviv, Ukraine) supports the idea of historians taking active part in social debates without betraying the principles of their profession and their objectivity. The thesis of historians’ non-engagement as a key principle is upheld by Olha Ostriychuk (L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France) who also notes that many studies describe the “state” of memory, not its dynamics. Uğur Ümit Üngör (University College Dublin, Ireland) reflects on the specific features of memory, using the example of the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire. The author argues that the current international policy of eternalizing memory depends on strategic interests, not ethic considerations. Tetyana Zhurzhenko (University of Vienna, Austria) emphasizes the efficacy of researching the memory of borderland and transborder territories. Virgiliu Birladeanu and Ludmila Cojocari (Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chişinău) offer examples of the use of commemorative practices and rituals as mechanisms for building group solidarity in the Republic of Moldova. Alain Blum (EHESS, Paris) emphasizes the fruitfulness of going beyond the framework of national history. He is convinced that developmental studies of memory in the post-communist countries will help internationalize the discussion, which will create, in some measure, a shield against national mythmaking.
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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 ».