The latest historiographic research on the history of the civil war in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, a significant number of historiographic studies on the history of the Civil War inRussia have been published, which aroused the interest of scientists and the public. The purpose ofthis article is to analyze the most striking works published in Russia on this topic, to draw attentionboth to the results of research by scientists and to the most discussed issues that need furtherdevelopment based on new scientific approaches and documentary materials. Today, the authorsstudy the Civil War as a large-scale, multifaceted phenomenon that affected all aspects of society,with long-term consequences. In modern works, there is a multiplicity of interpretations of the eventsof 1918-1922, which is associated with the complexity of the problem under study. Modern historianshave not come to a consensus on the reasons for the continuation of the Civil War in Russia, the roleof individual social groups in it, and the impact on the subsequent development of the country. Itseems that the solution to many of the issues discussed will depend on the inclusion of new sourcesof data in the research, the study of the Civil War on the basis of an integrated approach,understanding it as a manifestation of the socio-political and economic situation in the world in thefirst quarter of the 20th century.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".