Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August 1991 thousands of Minskers stood outside parliament, waiting impatiently for the results of the vote on Belarusan independence; their victory was only hours away. The days were hot and the sun shone brightly, and their world looked brave and new. People proudly identified themselves as Belarusans in the hope of a new Renaissance. Snatches of conversation spoken in Belarusan could be heard everywhere, and for the first time in history Belarusan was proclaimed the official language of the Republic of Belarus. Many who did not know their own language, which had survived despite centuries of persecution, became aware of the need to learn it. For once the nation was not simply a collection of folk dances and songs, but was seen as a young state in its own right; democratic forces perceived Belarus as a bridge between West and East, a buffer between civilizations. This new role could give the country a rate chance to acquire a voice of its own in the international arena. The divided world needed mediatiors, and Belarus was an ideal candidate. Throughout its history Belarus has known only brief periods of independence, torn between Eastern and Western neighbors who have considered it a key geostrategic point in the European world. Its hi tory of subjugation and the struggle for and cultural survival has been truly dramatic; conquerors have cared little for the wants and needs of Belarusans. Regarded as the remote outpost of empires (Kievan Rus', the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the kingdom of Poland, the Russian empire, the USSR), its language and have been quashed repeatedly. This persistent denial of Belarusan identity has produced a peculiar result: many in Belarus consider themselves people of culture rather than people of territory. Thus, the declaration of sovereignty by the Belarusan parliament was a momentous event for the of Belarus: it showed that, despite its history of occupation, the country had maintained its independence and its desire for self-government. Though the consciousness of Belarus' multi-ethnic population is still weak, the country has demonstrated to the world that it has its own goals and agenda, its own unique identity. Independence was an important matter for Belarusan artists as well. For the first time in history they could identify themselves as Belarusans, and not as part of a larger whole to which they could not always relate. Soviet ideology had hypocritically imposed a theory of art that was in form and socialist in content. The national component had little to do with consciousness; it was based on Marxist-Leninist principles, and focused on ethnography and the re-interpretation of history from the Soviet imperial perspective, which led to serious distortions and misinterpretations. Nationalism became one of the greatest sins in Soviet society, which, according to Lenin, sought the of nations: Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism, be it the most just, pure, refined and civilized. Instead of any nationalism, Marxism advances internationalism, [the] amalgamation of all nations in a higher unity.1 These ideologies had resulted in the degradation of art in the Soviet republics as a result of their loss of identity. With independence came the time for selfexpression in a nation which had been denied that right for hundreds of years. Belarusan film-makers actively involved in the formation of the new state' felt the need to express nationhood in their works, no matter how vague that idea seemed, and resorted either to the genetic memory of Belarusans or to the dreams of the nation. Belarusan cinematography began with Belgoskino, the first Belarusan film studio, which was founded in 1928 in-ironically-Leningrad. Belgoskino moved to Minsk in 1939 where it acquired the name of Belarusfilm. By 1991, Belarusfilm studios had become the fifth largest Soviet film enterprise (after the three Moscow studios and Lenfilm studios in Leningrad), making about 10 feature films, over 20 TV films and serials and an array of documentaries, plus cartoons and popular science films per year. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".