MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037498195 · doi:10.4000/monderusse.11402

Les deux solitudes de l’intelligentsia exilée

2019· article· fr· W3037498195 on OpenAlexaff
Leonid Livak

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers du monde russe · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntelligentsiaEmigrationHistoryWorld War IIAncient historyEthnologyPolitical scienceArchaeologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La désintégration de la diaspora antisoviétique en tant que communauté culturelle, dont l’épicentre se trouvait en France dans l’entre‑deux‑guerres, n’a fait l’objet d’aucune étude systématique. À force d’esquiver ce sujet, nous perdons de vue la nature complexe de la Russie en exil, comme en atteste sa fréquente réduction à un milieu ethniquement russe et culturellement chrétien orthodoxe. Le présent article suggère que la perte de la diversité ethno‑confessionnelle dans la communauté russophone en France – le noyau intellectuel de la Russie en exil – fut parmi les raisons de son déclin précipité dans les années 1940. Cette érosion de la diversité de la diaspora russophone concerne avant tout sa composante juive, qui était très active dans la vie culturelle russe en France du fait même de la forte présence de juifs dans l’intelligentsia émigrée. L’article s’attache à montrer que les expériences de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, divergentes pour la vaste majorité des émigrés non‑juifs de celles de leurs compatriotes juifs, produisirent des fractures fatales à la cohésion communautaire de la Russie en exil. Cette impossibilité d’harmoniser ces expériences dans un récit rétrospectif unique expliquerait en partie la réticence des mémorialistes émigrés et des premiers historiens de l’émigration antisoviétique à traiter des années 1940.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueCahiers du monde russeSame topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207