Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this presentation is to examine how Vladislav Khodasevich establishes his cosmopolitan position on the future of Russian Emigre literature in his final work Nekropol (1939). I aim to focus particularly on how his internal display of Jewishness in Nekropol serves as a critical mode to understand his cosmopolitan views towards art creation. Khodasevich, in his homage to his closest literary companions Samuil Kissin (Muni) and Mikhail Gershenzon, firmly demonstrates how Khodasevich’s cosmopolitan, rigorous views towards art creation were established through his Inorodtsy as a Polish Jew in Moscow, the use of Muni’s tragic death as a form of art creation through his use of trauma, and his tribute to universally-loved Gershenzon in instiling Khodasevich the necessity of artistic philosophies and public involvement in literary survival. With the combination of the factors above, Khodasevich’s views on artistic creation are completed during his emigre years, having his positive, rigorous approach to the future of Russian Emigre literature beyond its Oblomovism-like state during 1930s France. By allowing his readers an under-the-depth understanding of factors that developed Khodasevich’s cosmopolitan stances in Nekropol, Khodasevich’s tribute demonstrates the importance of linking the world of historical fields within Slavic studies, allowing a multidimensional understanding of both Jewish history and Russian literature in both Silver Age and under emigration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".