MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Minutes of the Ural Kolkhoz Meetings as an Important Archival Source on the History of the 1930s Peasantry

2019· article· en· W3135615562 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHerald of an Archivist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Behavioral Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterGovernment (linguistics)Power (physics)Political scienceDemocracyQuarter (Canadian coin)Public relationsLawHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The significance of the study is due to the fact that it is the first portrayal of the true life kolkhoz democracy resulting from quantitative research of the kolkhoz meetings minutes. The author studies the actual participation of peasants in the kolkhoz self-government in the Urals region in 1930s. To achieve his goal, he had to assess possibility of using archival data for processing; to analyze the topics of kolkhoz meetings, level of activity of their participants in discussion, interest of collective farmers in the results of discussion. The quantitative method allows to investigate main tendencies of the peasants participation in the administration of agricultural production. The initial survey of the minutes has shown their mostly unsatisfactory state for processing. The content analysis of the results of the minutes processing reveals that meetings discussed agricultural campaigns, party decisions and J. Stalin’s speeches, and reports of kolkhoz management. Ordinary collective farmers rarely participated in the debate. Most speakers addressed problems of organization and discipline of labour, pay and income distribution; they mostly stated facts. More than a quarter of the speeches was of critical nature. Constructive proposals for changing negative situation were rare. The agricultural co-operative charter proclaimed the meeting its supreme governing body, but most of the collective farmers stepped back from solving important issues. Often kolkhoz meetings were unauthorized. Representatives of power structures interfered in the kolkhoz affairs, disregarded the opinion of the collective, and imposed their own decisions. The implementation of meetings resolutions was rarely monitored. The author concludes that in the context of mobilization economy and rigid political regime the kolkhoz democracy was impossible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it