The Revolution and Civil War in Russia in Canadian historiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is devoted to perception of the February Revolution, the October revolution and the Civil War in Russia in Canadian historiography. The paper considers, firstly, works of historians Canadian citizens, secondly, works of scientists from other countries who have worked in Canada for a long time and, thirdly, works of foreigners, who published in Canadian scientific journals. All of the above works can be divided into three groups. Firstly, these are fundamental works on the history of the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Secondly, these are works devoted to foreign intervention in Russia and Canadian participation of Canada in this intervention. Thirdly, these are works relating to other particular aspects of this subject. The authors of all considered works refer to the February Revolution as an important step for democracy in Russia. Canadian historiography mainly condemns the October Revolution and criticizes Bolsheviks for authoritarianism and radicalism. The attitude of Canadian scientists to the White Guards is ambiguous. On the one hand, there is a certain sympathy for the Whites as allies of the Entente (and Canada). But on the other hand, the Whites are condemned for their ill-conceived domestic policies and for inability to reach a compromise with each other. The Canadian historiography of the 19171922 events in Russia is now practically unexplored, and therefore it is of scientific interest.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".