“Russian Idea” in Bulgarian Social and Political Life of Last Quarter of 19th Century (by Example of Views and Activities of the Highest Church Hierarchs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the main issues of expression of the “Russian idea” in the social and political life of Bulgarians in the last quarter of the 19 th century. The relevance of the study is determined by the increased interest in the spread of Russian influence in the modern world and, in particular, within the South-Eastern Europe, which in the 20 th century was the sphere of influence of the USSR. The author analyzes the historical significance, the scope and content of the “Russian idea” in the life of the Bulgarian society and state on the example of the attitudes and activities of the Supreme Church hierarchs (Exarch Joseph I and the Metropolitan Bishop Clement of Tarnovo). “Russian idea” is considered in the work not just as a structural element of a certain system of socio-political views, but also as a way of organizing the historical and political space of Bulgaria, as a special principle in the strategic modeling of the direction of its historical development with a certain geopolitical perspective on the basis of Slavs and Orthodoxy. It is concluded that the “Russian idea” in the last quarter of the 19 th - early 20 th centuries was a key element of the socio-political life of Bulgaria, the most important historical characteristic of its socio-cultural space and national consciousness. However, despite this, the “Russian idea” could not become a political choice of the Bulgarian state, as in the early 20 th century in the political space of Bulgaria prevailed anti-Russianism, supported by a narrow group of the ruling elite.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".