Eastern slavic pedagogy on attitude to the child (in the ethnographical sources of the 19th – first quarter of the 20th century)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is based on the analysis of ethnographic sources of the 19th - the first quarter of the 20th century. Features of the attitude towards the child in the Eastern Slavic folk pedagogy, the study and writing of which begins with the development of ethnography, have been characterized. In the nineteenth century. The interest of European scholars in the history and origin of the Slavic peoples is deepening, in ethnographic science there appears their division into the Eastern, the Western and the Southern. The Eastern Slavic group is represented by Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians. In the publication the folk pedagogy of the 19th – the first quarter of the 20th century is considered as a separate branch of knowledge with a clearly defined purpose of education and means for its achievement, and at the same time – a part of the vital activity of human society. Folk pedagogy emphasized the importance of mother and father, the whole family in the upbringing of the child, different age periods in the development of the child, the upbringing was carried out according to these age periods, the socialization of the individual occurred according to a system of values related to folk traditions in family and social relations. In the article it has been pointed out that from the first birthday the upbringing and socialization of the child were influenced by the traditional rural family, which existed until the 1920s. The family way of life of and the peculiarities of communicating with the children were decisive for the formation of the child’s first skills, from which largely depended its future behavior. The author considers the Eastern Slavic family as an institution in which the first and most valuable experience was formed – the children acquired important working skills, learned basic norms and rules of behavior. The peasant family in the traditional East Slavic society of the nineteenth and first quarters of the twentieth century was a social institute with a well-organized mechanism of inter-family relations, with clearly fixed responsibilities of each of its members according to the gender and age distribution of work. The children from the youngest age were involved into the traditions. The whole way of life of the Eastern Slavic peasants of the 19th - the first quarter of the 20th century promoted the upbringing of the child by work and in labor, fostered respect for the elders and caring attitude towards the younger ones. The author examines the attitude of Eastern Slavic peoples towards children with mental and physical disabilities. The history of the Eastern Slavic peoples testifies that the traditions of humane, compassionate attitude towards unfortunate children began to be established in folk pedagogy even during the period of tribal relations. The attention is drawn to the process of establishing orphanage and upbringing of orphans, which existed in two main forms: individual and collective. The author concludes that according to the folk philosophy of the Eastern Slavic peoples of the 19th - the first quarter of the 20th century. The main function of the family is the birth and upbringing of children as the continuators of the family, who were to nurture, multiply and transmit the family culture of customs and traditions to the next generations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".