Per Anders Rudling.<i>The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belarus is a national state where, paradoxically, nationalism is very weak. There was a period, however, when Belarusian nationalism flourished, and Per Anders Rudling attempts to explain its rise and fall. While this attempt is less than successful, the monograph does offer some valuable insights. In 1906, Belarusian nationalism was limited to a small group of intellectuals. Its prospects looked bleak, as Belarusian peasants lacked national consciousness. During the Great War, however, the question of Belarus as an independent state became an element of a larger geopolitical game, which worked in the Belarusian nationalists’ favor. First, they used Germany’s tacit support to proclaim the Belarusian People’s Republic in 1918. After the war, they exploited the rivalry for Belarusian support between Soviet Russia, Poland, and initially also Lithuania. However, with the end of the Polish-Soviet War and the Riga Treaty of 1921, Belarus was split into two parts: the western went to Poland, while the eastern formed Soviet Belarus within the Soviet Union. Moscow tried to destabilize Poland by pursuing the policy of Belarusization. The vernacular Belarusian language was used in Soviet Belarusian education, press, and administration. With Soviet Belarus looking like a genuine national republic, Belarusian activists in Poland—facing the threat of assimilation—became pro-Soviet. Marshal Józef Piłsudski, the Polish dictator since 1926, suppressed the pro-Soviet Belarusian movement. This development and Piłsudski’s sponsorship of the Promethean project, which aimed to detach Belarus and Ukraine from the Soviet Union, were the main reasons for Moscow’s change of policy. Joseph Stalin concluded that the marriage of convenience between the Bolsheviks and Belarusian national activists must be terminated. The latter became too assertive, and Stalin doubted whether he could rely on them in the face of Piłsudski’s Promethean project.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".