Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The whole history of Russian thought during the Soviet period was a history with missing chapters”.1 One of such missing chapters is a history of the Soviet reception of the corpus of work created by Mikhail M. Bakhtin, Soviet thinker and literary critic (1895—1975). The history of the Soviet reception of Bakhtin’s ideas has not been written yet and there are no works on the subject. There is Zbinden’s book,2 which deals with research about some particular cases of Bakhtin studies in Canada and in French translations. Despite the fact that in the 1960–1980s the «theory of carnival» became, in the words of S.S. Averintsev, a «regular classic» and the subject of citation for any specialists in the humanities, the reception of Bakhtin’s ideas in the Soviet Union was not successful: all of his contemporaries and conversation partners could not come into proper contact with the Soviet thinker. The present working paper is an attempt to reconstruct one case from the history of the Soviet reception of Bakhtin’s heritage, using the works of Vladimir N. Turbin (1927—1993) as an example. The study examines Turbin’s books A Short While Before Aquarius: A Farewell to Epos and his articles from different years (including those published posthumously), relating to Bakhtin, his life, theories, ideas and books. All these works will answer the question why the Soviet reception of Bakhtinʼs heritage in the 1960–1970 did not take place, and why the book, which Turbin wanted to write about his teacher, has not been written.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".