Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the first time, the activity of the weaving vocational school in the village Digtyari (modern Chernihiv region) is analyzed. It was the leading educational institution of the middle level of vocational education of the Ukrainian SSR in the second half of the 1920s, in which the creators of traditional textiles studied. The students learned the skills of making carpets, embroidered shirts, and kerchiefs. On the basis of archival sources, the histories, educational process, composition of the teaching and student groups of the school during 1926-1929 are covered. Established in the fall of 1926, the institution was to train qualified master practitioners for the factory and handicraft arts industry, who had formed an artistic taste. The teaching staff initially consisted of local general education teachers and visiting instructors and teachers of special subjects (O. Reisfeld and M. Dyachenko). The institution was headed by uneducated communists Yu. Kozelev and S. Lutayenko. The students of the first set were mostly non-locals, orphans. But the second set already consisted mostly of children of local peasants and artisans. The school had a significant material base, which remained from the textile educational institutions that operated in Digtyary during the first quarter of the twentieth century. The main rooms were located on the right-wing of the main building of the palace complex of the Galagan estate. As a result of the study of the materials of the minutes of the meetings of the school council, the conflict situations that constantly arose between the managers and their supporters and visiting specialists and led to the departure of the latter from Digtyary were analyzed. The initial stage of the existence of the Digtyari weaving professional school, problems in relations between staff, and the originality of the contingent of the first set of students influenced the quality of their training. As it is clear from the available sources, during the first and the beginning of the second school year students worked both theoretically and practically, but due to lack of raw materials they could not produce a significant amount of full-fledged products. The school’s workshop worked on “factory” and, in part, “peasant” raw materials. At the end of the second year of study, students were already making work suitable for sale. The school operated in two directions. The visiting instructor, an experienced artist M. Dyachenko brought a new vision of teaching graphic literacy into the educational process. Weaving and embroidery instructors who either graduated from the textile schools previously existing in Digtyary (A. Reisfeld, V. Nikolskaya) or worked there for a long time (G. Tsybuleva) broadcast local traditions. During the years under study, about 100 students studying at the institution, and one graduation took place. Troubles in the personal relationship between teachers and school management and insufficient funding have affected the quality of education. But even in such conditions, students not only mastered special and general education subjects but also participated in exhibitions, made marketable products, engaged in research work. Curricula developed by M. Dyachenko and O. Reisfeld became a model for other craft educational institutions. And the textbook was written by O. Reisfeld - the first Ukrainian-language textbook on the technology of folk weaving. Keywords: Digtyari weaving professional school, Mykhaylo Dyachenko, Pryluky region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".