An "Other" of One's OwnPre-WWI South Slavic Academic Discourses on the 'zadruga'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the concept of zadruga has attracted the interest of many writers and scholars -South-Eastern as well as Western European and North American. ese scholars have constructed and re-constructed the zadruga as a rural South Slavic form of familial organization, or "South-Eastern" as it has more recently (after ) been termed.Since then the zadruga has stood -from a South Slavic or Yugoslav point of viewin different variations of opposition to its "Other, " which was Western Europe, or to be more precise, to what was thought to be a Western European familial constellation.e person credited with having invented the neologism zadruga is the Serbian ethnologist and language reformer Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (-). Valtazar Bogišić, one of the pioneers of zadruga research in the nineteenth century, argued that Karadžić was mistaken when he introduced the word zadruga in his Serbian-German-Latin dictionary.Bogišić, whose account of the zadruga will be discussed presently, was convinced that the noun zadruga had never existed and that, since Dušan's code in the fourteen century, the word kuća (Serbo-Croatian for house) had been used to name a household or family, not unlike in other parts of Europe.According to Bogišić, people added the adjective zadružna if they wanted to express that a household had enough workers at its disposal; if this was not the case, a household or a family would be called inokosna (kuća). e word zadruga seems to have been recorded for the first time in the first edition of Karadžić's dictionary of : Задруґа, f.Hausgenossenschaft (im Gegensatze der einzelnen Familie), plures familiae in eadem domo (more Serbico).(Karadžić Srpski rječnik )
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".