MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breaking Down the Man of Steel: Stalin in Russia Today

2013· article· en· W2051061478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles J. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEastern European Communism and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingShameReputationLawPeriod (music)Political sciencePhenomenonField (mathematics)SociologyAestheticsPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of why some Russian citizens look upon Josef Stalin respectfully today. Based upon the results of an original nationwide survey conducted by the Levada Analytical Center and supplemented by seventy field interviews, this article posits that a considerable number of Russians view Stalin respectfully on account of three factors. First, Stalin remains a somewhat revered historical figure in part because most Russians harbour no feelings of shame about the Soviet past. Additionally, the tendency of some to rationalize Stalin’s main policies of the 1930s, by claiming that there was no other way for the USSR to industrialize than according to the course adhered to by Stalin, helps to safeguard the former General Secretary’s reputation. That said, the primary reason why some Russians view Stalin respectfully is due to the pervasiveness of nostalgia for the Soviet period, a widespread phenomenon which serves to bolster Stalin’s image as a leader whose contributions led to the realization of great achievements. This article contends that feelings of respect for Stalin are mainly grounded in how Russians evaluate the present ordering of society in comparison to the Soviet past.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Slavonic PapersSame topicEastern European Communism and ReformsFrench-language works237,207