The Latest Publications of the Czechoslovak Corps in Russia in Modern Russian Historiography (1914-1920)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgency of the problem stems from the fact that the history of the Czechoslovak Corps is viewed in modern Russian historiography in the context of the history of the Civil War in Russia and continues to be the key to its history. The article deals with the problem question in modern Russian historiography in studying the Czechoslovak Corps in Russia. Three approaches, which differ in varying degrees of recognition of the responsibility of the Czechoslovak Legionnaires in the outbreak of the civil war in Russia, are examined in this article. The conclusion is that it is wrong to shift the responsibility in this matter to an external force, as it leads away from understanding the nature and root causes of the civil war. It is noted that despite the expansion of the source base, researchers continue to focus their attention on various aspects of military and political history of the Czechoslovak Corps. The article highlights the national discourse in research on the history of the Czechoslovak Corps. As an important achievement of modern Russian historiography it is stated that national liberation motives in the actions of the Czechoslovak armed forces in Russia are considered to have been of primary importance. The article notes the priority of regional historians in the study of the topic. This priority can be explained by the specifics of the subject of their study as well as the opportunities that regional archives open. The practical significance of the study is that the results and conclusions can be used to assess the state of development of modern historiography and find the strategy of historiographical research, and to develop the courses on historical specialties:
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".