Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few events of early modern East Slavic history have attracted as much attention or caused such public controversy as the Pereiaslav Agreement of January 1654 between Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky of Ukraine and the Muscovite boyars. When the Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, apparently trying to please his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, signed a decree in March 2002 to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Council, which had approved the deal from the Ukrainian side, his opponents immediately accused him of kowtowing to Russia. The decree provoked heated debates in scholarly circles and in the media. In January 2004 the Ukrainian authorities had to scale down the commemoration of the event, to the apparent displeasure of the Russian delegation, headed by President Vladimir Putin, which came to Kyiv to celebrate the “Year of Russia in Ukraine.” What was it about the Pereiaslav Agreement that infuriated so many of Ukraine's academics and politicians, while eliciting such approval from the Russian political and academic elite? At the core of the disagreement is not so much the event itself or the hard facts of its history as its interpretation, especially in the nineteenth-century Russian Empire and its successor state, the USSR. It is no accident that President Kuchma's critics accused him of reviving the Soviet tradition of celebrating the “reunification of Ukraine with Russia” – the official formula that defined the purpose of the Pereiaslav Agreement in Soviet historiography after World War II. There were two commemorations of the event in the Soviet period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".