MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973043408 · doi:10.1111/russ.12248

Karamzin's Traveler Meets the Locals: Micro‐Encounters in <i>Letters of a Russian Traveler</i>

2019· article· en· W2973043408 on OpenAlexaff
Lyudmila Parts

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Russian Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePersonaIdentity (music)Face (sociological concept)Agency (philosophy)PeasantFocus (optics)AestheticsSociologyHistoryGender studiesLiteratureArtHumanitiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Karamzin's Letters of a Russian Traveler, like most Russian travel narratives, is concerned with questions of national identity; my focus, however, is on the stories of human contact within the broader narratives of the encounter of civilizations, which I call micro‐encounters. I discuss the traveler's personal encounters with the ‘non‐great’ and ‘non‐sublime,’ proceeding from such questions as: What type of identity is constructed when he comes face‐to‐face with an ordinary local? How does he act, when the object of his gaze is neither Kant, nor the Rhine Falls but an uncelebrated foreign woman, peasant, or student? And what if they look back? These episodes reveal the multiple layers of the carefully constructed narrative persona, as one that negotiates between various, often conflicting identities, such as that of a representative of a culture, gender, social position, or an artistic movement. Like microhistory, the micro‐encounter analysis reduces the scale of observation in order to focus on the issues of individual agency and the key role of the narrative persona.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Russian ReviewSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207