MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534451246

Forests, Peasants, and Revolutionaries: Forest Conservation and Organization in Soviet Russia, 1917-1929

2007· article· en· W1534451246 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tracy McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpansiveForest managementPolitical scienceNature ConservationWork (physics)GeographyEcologyForestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brian Bonhomme. Forests, Peasants, and Revolutionaries: Forest Conservation and Organization in Soviet Russia, 1917-1929. East European Monographs. Boulder, Colorado: Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2005. 252 pp. $ 55.85, cloth.In his monograph, Forests, Peasants, and Revolutionaries: Forest Conservation and Organization in Soviet Russia, 1917-1929, Brian Bonhomme has made a vital contribution to the still sparse work available on the Russian forest, particularly from the historian's perspective. Together with Douglas Weiner's work on forests and conservation, these studies stand as the beginning of an incredibly important, fruitful, and expansive reserve for the historian. Research on the management, usage, conservation, and conflicts over the forest provides crucial insights into institutions, legislation, social history, environmental history, culture, and ecology.Bonhomme's title is especially revealing in that it prioritizes his subjects and his affections: forests first, peasants second, and revolutionaries last. His chief interest and focus is conservation and he clearly lays out his primary claims from the start. He argues that early Soviet forest conservation had its roots in pre-revolutionary forest conservation which has hitherto been underrated or ignored. He challenges Weiner's claims on early Soviet conservation as being too narrowly focused on designated nature preserves (zapovedniki) which in turn created an overly optimistic portrait of conservation because of the degree to which these limited areas were protected. Bonhomme argues that Soviet conservation efforts should not be judged 'cutting edge' (unless, of course, that term be taken quite literally!). Bonhomme's third key claim is worth noting in its entirety:Third, and most important, Soviet efforts at forest protection during this period, it turns out, where significantly hampered-even undermined-not only by the inevitable contemporary changes of the Revolution and Civil War, but more fundamentally by the unfailing noncooperation of the Russian peasantry, the nation's majority population, for whom nature conservation and forest planning held little appeal and were instead constant sources of irritation and resentment. This conflict, aptly characterized by a Bolshevik observer in 1924 as 'the war between the population and the forest economy' is the dominant theme of much of this study (p. 5).Concentrating as he does on the early conservationists, Bonhomme lends to repeat their characterization of the peasantry as downright hostile to the forests without a thought for the future. However, it seems unfair to pass such a judgment on peasant consciousness given the circumstance and the time frame of a few years marked by extreme shortages and hardship. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Slavonic PapersSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207