Adapting to Changing Contexts of Choice: The Nation-Building Strategies of Unrecognized Silesians and Rusyns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.The article explores the relationship between institutional constraints and nation-building. Non-recognized Rusyns in Ukraine and Silesians in Poland respond instrumentally to state definitions of “minority.” Moreover, both groups adjust their strategies to European structures and discourses which provide new ways to frame their identity claims. Institutions determine the constraints and incentives of group action. Identity is not only constructed, but is reconstructed in a rational way. Contrary, however, to the rational choice instrumental perspective which would predict an assimilation process, state policies encourage the Rusyns and Silesians to re-imagine and reinforce their distinctiveness. Résumé.L'article examine le lien qui existe entre les contraintes institutionnelles et l'édification de la nation. Non reconnus, les Ruthènes en Ukraine et les Silésiens en Pologne réagissent instrumentalement aux définitions du terme «minorité» établies par ces États. De plus, les deux groupes adaptent leurs stratégies aux structures et aux discours de l'Europe, qui leur permet de formuler leurs revendications identitaires d'une nouvelle manière. Les institutions établissent les contraintes et les incitatifs à l'action collective. L'identité n'est pas seulement construite, elle est reconstruite de façon rationnelle. Contrairement, toutefois, à la perspective instrumentale du choix rationnel qui aurait prédit un processus d'assimilation, les politiques étatiques incitent les Ruthènes et les Silésiens à ré-imaginer et à renforcer leur identité distincte.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".