Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gogol’s persona is still nowadays at the centre of a debate, which aims to place him either within the Russian or Ukrainian borders. His Russian contemporary scholars - such as Belinsky - while building a national literature, placed Gogol’ into their literary canon. Today, instead, scholars such as Bojanowska are trying to deconstruct the Russian imperialist discourse, in order to affirm a new awareness on Gogol’s writings and personal inclination. Although the two main currents exclude one another, they both trace a moment in Gogol’s production when the author seems to detach himself from his Ukrainianness.Nevertheless, the debate on Gogol’s persona does not end in the Russian, Ukrainian, and North American context. Further studies, which are less concerned about the nationalistic discourse or postcolonial theories, provide other interpretations of the matter. For instance, in her preface to the Italian translation of Rome, Giuliani traces a topographic triangle in the Gogolian literature. The summits are represented by three main places and the correspondent literary works: Ukraine (Mirgorod, 1835), Saint Petersburg (Nevsky Prospekt, 1835), and Rome (Rome, 1842). At the same time, these three places trace Gogol’s literary growth: Ukraine is seen as his beloved homeland, Saint Petersburg as the place where he started his career, and Rome as the city where his spirit finally found peace.Following these steps, the present work aims to analyze the fragment Rome, in order to trace its Ukrainian elements by comparing it to the stories in the collection Evening from a Farm Near Dikanka.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".