Художник как субъект взаимодействия русской и украинской культур в первой четверти XX в
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of an artist in the process of interaction between Russian and Ukrainian cultures in a complex transitional period of the first quarter of the 20th century is studied using an interdisciplinary approach and system analysis. Such analysis employs an understanding of these cultures united by a common fate and history of the two brotherly nations. The investigation of this problem becomes even more important with the revival of the policy of Ukrainization which appeared in the modern Ukrainian community in the 20s of the last century. In connection with this the tendency to divide culture into Russian and national, together with a limited interpretation of the cultural national heritage as the only source of progressive development have acquired the solid basis. The purpose of the research is to reveal the peculiarities and the importance of the historic experience of the artist as a subject in the conditions of the interaction and mutual enrichment of the Russian and Ukrainian national cultures. One such example is A.A. Kokel whose heritage belongs to the Chuvash, Russian and Ukrainian cultures. Unfortunately, the name of A.A. Kokel, who is justly considered to be one of the most prominent artists of the first half of the 20th century, has been forgotten for a long time, just as the names of other talented artists the Russian and Ukrainian nations were proud of. In the given research work Kokel's active role in the dialogue of cultures is reconstructed in the chronological order
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".