The legitimization of the endo-ethnonym “Mari” in the first quarter of the XX century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Mari people formed in the IX–XI centuries AD and settled due to historical circumstances mostly within the Volga-Kama region. For many centuries it had two ethnonyms: Cheremis and Mari. In the first quarter of the XX century the representatives of the Mari people selected one ethnonym in favor of another one, which was authentic and complimentary; it turned out to be a very complex historical fact. Materials and methods. The use of a systematic analysis of the sources of the studied period, an attempt to restore events in chronological dynamics, studying the events of the Mari ethnic history in the context of all-Russian history allows us to formulate the most objective answers to the research problems. Results and discussion. One of the earliest precursors to the solution of the ethnonymic alternative was “Marla Calendar” yearbook, the first publication to receive official recognition, where the self-name of the people took its rightful place on the cover of the printed edition. The turning point in using of the ethnonym was the First All-Russian Congress of the Mari People in July 1917. The materials of the Congress, both in the original language and in translation into Russian, do not contain a single use of the term Cheremis. February Regional Congress of Mari (1918) made a historic decision to abandon the existing name Cheremis people and replace it with the self-name of the people, Mari. Conclusion. The historical process of legitimization of the ethnonym Mari developed according to a certain pattern: “the position of a broad ethno-social base → a small number of the intelligentsia capable of formulating ideas → the agenda and resolutions of the national movement → legal acts, official record keeping, the language of science …”.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".