Minutes of the Ural Kolkhoz Meetings as an Important Archival Source on the History of the 1930s Peasantry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".