Contested Memories About World War II in Ukrainian Literary Discourse: Soviet Versus Émigré
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines contrasting memories of Soviet and émigré discourses in Ukrainian literature. The Soviet discourse tended to sanitize the war experience, exploiting the concept of the Great Patriotic War, along the ideological lines of the socialist realist style in literature, with a designated set of topics and characteristics to glorify this war, including the leading role of the Communist party, and Soviet messianism. Despite some periods of liberalization, this model remained under the tight control of the Moscow centre and was reinforced after Brezhnev’s re-introduction of Victory Day. Presenting an alternative voice, the émigré discourse is shown as a more vibrant one, which found itself on a mission to undermine the mono-centric nature of the imperial discourse and record the complex truth about the war. Being a deliberate attempt to battle for its own representation, the émigré discourse, though with its own biases, addressed all those issues ignored in Soviet literature, including the critical attitude of Ukrainians to the Soviet regime and the war, the portrayal of the resistance movement, and the presentation of World War II as a tragedy for the Ukrainian nation, caught between fascism and Bolshevism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".