Bibliographic record
Abstract
The agrarian reform was a spearhead of the Rebel Army. –Ernesto Guevara The Soviet counterinsurgency doctrine has never been articulated as a counterinsurgency manual, yet Politburo members knew how the Bolsheviks had won the civil war. Facing a nationalist challenge in the borderlands, the Soviet regime responded with a set of political, military, and security measures it had developed during the civil war. Its stick-and-carrot strategy presumed a combination of populist reforms intended to win the hearts of the poorer majority, harsh punitive policies designed to eliminate all actual and potential opponents, and amnesties that would allow all proletarians and their class allies who accidentally found themselves among the Soviet enemies to switch sides. The Soviet leaders viewed insurgency as an inevitable class conflict; therefore, it was vital to involve the borderland poor in the struggle against the resistance, organize them politically and militarily by appointing them to local administrative positions and by raising peasant militia, and lead them against the enemies of the proletarian state. This class struggle was to culminate in a social revolution controlled and directed by the state. Agrarian reform was the major political means with which to instigate a class conflict that would end with the destruction of the resistance by the joint force of the state security agencies, the proletariat, and its allies – peasants. The theory of class conflict, however, was always ambivalent with regard to the peasantry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".