The Paradox of Perception of “Foreign” in Russian Culture of the First Quarter of the XIX Century (on the Example of the Image of the French in the War of 1812)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author analyzes the image of the “Foreign” in the Russian culture of the first quarter of the XIX century on the example of the French. The factors which influence the transformation of the image of “Foreign” are noted: political situation, official ideology, historical memory. Researchers have described the situation of the XIX century as a cultural pendulum. The direction vectors of this pendulum changed from gallomania to gallophobia and in the opposite direction. They also combined political and everyday forms and were differentially perceived in noble and folk culture. These factors formed the complexity and inconsistency of Russian cultural space. The theses of B. Waldenfels about the paradoxical nature of “Foreign” about the research period and the perspective were used. The paradoxes of “Foreign” were revealed on the examples of the Russian noble culture, a comparative analysis with folk culture was carried out. The author took into account the methodology proposed by B. Waldenfels, using the sources of personal origin and fiction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it