Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the problem of formation and development of the Cossack émigré after World War II. The Cossack émigré is being examined as integral part of the Russian emigre. Most reasons which resulted that some part of the Cossacks to stay abroad were of an objective nature. However it is rarely possible to pick out the only reason of reluctance of return. The structure of the Cossack emigre had changed. It was increased with former Soviet citizens and at the same time some part of former white émigré was delivered to the USSR. Cossacks who were situated both in camps for displaced persons and generally in Europe and China tried to leave for countries placed outside the Eurasian continent. In this respect the most attractive were the USA, Canada, Australia and states of the South America. In some degree decision of migration was caused by the immigration policy of some states. After World War II the most part of Russian and Cossack associations, organizations and communities had mainly socio-cultural nature. There were socio-political and psychological contradictions between the members of the first and the second emigration waves. Sometimes they encouraged mistrust, opposition and in many cases open enmity and struggle inside the emigre. At once the Cossack emigre was affected be factors which by contrast contributed to rapprochement of the members of two emigration waves. Being an integral part of the Russian emigre the Cossacks after World War II went down the same road as the other Russian emigrants but having some special aspects caused by different factors of both objective and subjective origins.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".