MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741248188 · doi:10.7202/1040563ar

Comments for the roundtable on Yanni Kotsonis, States of Obligation: Taxes and Citizenship in the Russian Empire and Early Soviet Republic (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014)

2017· article· en· W2741248188 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Heather J. Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoviet and Russian History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationCitizenshipState (computer science)EmpirePolitical scienceCitizen journalismConstruct (python library)HistoriographyThe RepublicLawIntervention (counseling)SociologyEpistemologyPoliticsPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This response to Yanni Kotsonis’ States of Obligation focuses on Kotsonis’ intervention in one of the fundamental questions of Russian historiography, the relationship between state and society. Kotsonis argues that new kinds of taxes (and especially new modes of assessment of those taxes) brought a new kind of citizen into being, one whose relationship with the state was individualized and participatory, but not representative. This commentary acknowledges that Kostonis persuasively demonstrates that state officials used taxation first to identify and then to construct a particular type of citizen. However, it asks whether Kotsonis’ conclusions about a state-centred emergence of the Russian person and of a Russian model of citizenship, anchored in obligations rather than rights, simply reproduces the aspirations of the bureaucrats he studies while underestimating society’s interactions with these processes and its ability to articulate alternatives.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0260.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.012

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.267
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicSoviet and Russian HistoryFrench-language works237,207