Andriy Zayarnyuk. Framing the Ukrainian Peasantry in Habsburg Galicia, 1846–1914.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this ambitious and sprawling work, Andriy Zayarnyuk traces the emergence of the concept of “the Ukrainian peasantry” in Austrian eastern Galicia beginning in the 1840s, and he tracks how that concept became an experienced reality by the early twentieth century. The Galician countryside constitutes a classic example of the nationalization of the peasantry in the nineteenth century. Bringing together social history with poststructuralist theory, Zayarnyuk challenges in several ways the conventional wisdom about the development of the Ukrainian national movement and Ukrainian national consciousness. Zayarnyuk draws on a diverse theoretical base, from Foucault's insights on the discursive and institutional techniques of modern power, to anthropological studies of peasant societies, and research on class formation, to formulate his questions and analyze his evidence. He defines “framing” as “the process whereby a self-perpetuating framework for the deployment of modern forms of power is created” (p. x). He explores the relationship between theoretical conceptualizations of the peasantry and politics, the practical work of political activists, and statements made by the peasantry. But this is not a study of discourse without real people. The book fairly teems with the voices and experiences of peasants, but also the priests, intellectuals, officials, landlords, and politicians who talked to and about them. Zayarnyuk focuses on two districts, Sambir and Staryi Sambir, using a series of case studies to show how identity politics worked at the grassroots level, and tracing the development of networks of village activists and their interaction with the broader national movement. At the center of his interpretation are the writings and personal experiences of Ivan Mykhas, the most prolific peasant correspondent to popular newspapers from the Sambir district during the 1880s and 1890s. Zayarnyuk exploits a prodigious range of archival and published sources, and reading these diverse sources with an eye to uncovering the frameworks through which the peasantry was imagined, he emphasizes how discourses both arise from social experience and shape it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".