MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081518291 · doi:10.1111/russ.10683

Was the Gulag an Archipelago? De‐Convoyed Prisoners and Porous Borders in the Camps of Western Siberia

2013· article· en· W2081518291 on OpenAlexaff
Wilson T. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Russian Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Socio-Economic Development Trends
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGulagArchipelagoPhenomenonHistorySpace (punctuation)GeographyEthnologySociologyArchaeologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the issue of de‐convoyed (raskonvoirovannye) prisoners in order to argue that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's enduring analogy for the Gulag—the archipelago—is, in many instances, misleading. The practice of allowing significant numbers of prisoners to move, unguarded, outside of the camp zones was widespread throughout the Stalin era, and is especially interesting as a topic of study for Western Siberia, an area where the largest camp subdivisions were located within the city limits of major urban centers, such as Novosibirsk and Tomsk. This article is the first systematic study of the phenomenon during the Stalin era, and assesses the rules of and reasons for de‐convoyed status, prisoners' thoughts concerning unguarded movement, and problems and opportunities (including black market activity) arising from the widespread presence of unescorted prisoners. Ultimately, the Gulag's porous borders meant that Gulag space was not separate, isolated space, despite the best intentions of the regime.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Russian ReviewSame topicRegional Socio-Economic Development TrendsFrench-language works237,207