MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607331706

Лишение и восстановление в избирательных правах православных церковнослужителей Западной Сибири в середине 1920-х - середине 1930-х гг

2016· article· ru· W2607331706 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Москаленская Дарья Николаевна

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Filologiya · 2016
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Behavioral Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultDenialPeasantPower (physics)Political scienceVotingQuarter (Canadian coin)LoyaltyLawSociologyHistoryPublic administrationPsychologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disfranchisement existing in Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1936 created an artificial marginal group that included ministers of the church. Instructions on elections to the Soviets issued throughout the 1920s differently interpreted the term servants of a religious cult. At the end of 1920s, this category included not only priests, but also psalmists, singers and even the operating personnel of the church. The aim of the article is to identify the specific situation of this group of disenfranchised persons, as well as to consider problems associated with the restoration of the clergy in the voting rights. The work is based on the materials of private cases stored in Novosibirsk, Tomsk and Barnaul archives. Demographic and socio-cultural characteristics of the studied groups were analyzed using a created electronic database. We concluded that literate older men predominated among clergymen. They were peasant by birth, and service in the church was not their primary and permanent occupation. Arguments and tactics used by disfranchised clergymen in the fight for restoration are considered by using their applications to election committees of different levels. One popular tactic is the denial of belonging to the servants of a religious cult. Acolytes called themselves amateurs of singing and denied receiving monetary compensation. Formally, a five-year working experience and loyalty to the Soviet power were necessary to restore the voting rights. About a quarter of the clergymen managed to achieve positive decisions of election committees. Petitions of urban clergy were more successful, while in rural areas the situation was more complex. First, it was difficult to find a job for a five-year seniority in the countryside. Second, rural clergy were often deprived of electoral rights for several reasons, such as exploitation of wage labor and exploitation of farm machinery. In addition, part of them were already exiled in the beginning of the 1930s, and in the case of restoration of civil rights they were supposed to have their confiscated property back, which the authorities sought to avoid. Thus, clergymen were discriminated after disfranchisement on a par with priests. Disfranchisement of clergymen and priests was one of the measures of the authorities against the Orthodox Church. This measure suppressed the activity of the Church, deprived it of social support and the devotion of the traditional groups of society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta FilologiyaSame topicSocial and Behavioral StudiesFrench-language works237,207