Despite the Valuev Directive: Books Permitted by the Censors in Violation of the Restrictions Against Ukrainian Publishing, 1864-1904
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1863, the Russian imperial government decreed restrictions on book publishing in Ukrainian. The restrictions were then revised and were endorsed on several later occasions. They banned nonfiction literature directed at common people, children’s literature, and translations from Russian. The restrictions were in force until the all-Russian revolution in 1905, although they were formally repealed only in 1907. This article discusses the books the censors authorized for publication despite the fact that their publication violated the restrictions on Ukrainian publishing. In the years 1863-1904, 125 such books were published in all. Most of them appeared during three periods: 1874-76, 1882-83 and 1896-1904. In the first period, most books were permitted by a corrupt censor in Kyiv who received bribes from the local Hromada, a Ukrainian society. In the second period, minor concessions to Ukrainian publishers were deemed politically expedient. In the third period, the censors took the general usefulness of the book into account; if they deemed the book useful, they permitted it even though its publication violated the restrictions. Ukrainian activists used these opportunities because they facilitated popular enlightenment in the Ukrainian national spirit through book publishing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".