The Ukrainian reading public in the 1920s: real, implied, and ideal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reading public was discussed in the Soviet Ukrainian press during the 1920s, at a time when the drive to eliminate illiteracy and implement Ukrainization was scoring increasing successes. Sociological studies of the “real” reader indicated strong preferences for pre-revolutionary authors and foreign writers in translation. Under pressure from Moscow, in the late 1920s Mykola Skrypnyk, the Commissar for Education, and the literary theorist Kost' Dovhan' changed the rhetoric advocating Ukrainization, stressing its proletarian content. They supported the concept of an “implied” working-class reader who read Ukrainian and was simultaneously committed to developing socialism and a “proletarian” culture. However, many sophisticated writers pitched their work to an “ideal” reader, whom they imagined as the end-product of Ukrainization – a culturally literate, urban, and critically thinking consumer. The three ways of conceptualizing the consumer clashed, as the Ukrainization policy went through two major shifts during the period of the first five-year plan (1928–33). Ideologists, educators, and writers adapted to these shifts by redefining the way they conceptualized the reader.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".