Ukrainization: the emergence and dissemination of the concept (first quarter of the twentieth century)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the origin of the concept “Ukrainization” and the interpretation of the word in the socio-political lexicon of the first quarter of the 20th century. Attention is paid to the assessment of the Ukrainization by supporters and opponents of the Ukrainian national movement. The leaders of the Ukrainian movement actively talked about the Ukrainization in the early twentieth century. They insisted on creating conditions for the realization of the rights of the Ukrainian nation to independent development. The concept has been repeatedly used by M. Hrushevsky and Ye. Chykalenko. With the beginning of the revolution in Russia, the need for the Ukrainization was constantly discussed in the Ukrainian Central Rada. The concept was used both in a narrow sense (the Ukrainization of the school, the Ukrainization of local governments, etc.) and in a broad sense (the Ukrainization of all life). The concept of “Ukrainization” was associated with the idea of the policy of building a national Ukrainian state and the process of development of national consciousness. Opponents of the Ukrainian movement insisted on the artificiality of the process of the Ukrainization. For example, S. N. Shchegolev considered it “an experiment on the people”. The emotional perception of the Ukrainization was associated with the attitude to the “Ukrainian question” and the way it was resolved, but not with its meaning. For the supporters of the Ukrainian project, the Ukrainization was a method of achieving the goals of the national movement. The Ukrainization was a policy aimed at establishing the Ukrainian character of the socio-cultural space of a certain territory.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".