MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W315446842

"Ukrainskii Vopros" V Politike Vlastei I Russkom Obshchestvennom Mnenii (Vtoraia Polovina XIX V.)

2000· article· hr· W315446842 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2000
Typearticle
Languagehr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Politics and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianEmpireMillerNationalismNational identityPopulationPolitical scienceNational QuestionPoliticsEconomic historyIdeologyHistoryLawSociologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A.I. Miller. Ukrainskii vopros v politike vlastei i russkom obshchestvennom mnenii (vtoraia polovina XIX v.) St. Petersburg: Aleteiia, 2000. 267 pp. Index. Illustrations. Cloth. The leading Moscow specialist on Russian-Ukrainian relations of the modern period, Aleksei Miller, has published a remarkable book on the problem in late Imperial Russia. This work rejects both the primordialist concept of Ukrainian national identity and a straightforward understanding of Russian imperialist assimilationism in favor of a much more sophisticated treatment. Miller argues that Russia's Ukrainian policy is best described as the imperial project of constructing a Russian nation. However, the tsarist government failed to implement this policy consistently because such a project was being obscured by the attempt to maintain and ensure allegiance to a dynastic, pre-national empire. In a lengthy introduction, the author demonstrates his outstanding command of modern Western literature on nationalism. Having spelled out his understanding of the imagined quality of nations and discursive nature of nationalisms, Miller then explains that the issue of Russia's identity as a began troubling the imperial ideologues relatively late. The imperial bureaucrats and journalists repeatedly compared to non-dominant ethnic groups in contemporary France, Spain, and Great Britain. These ideologues were prepared to accept Little-Russianness as a regional identity on the condition that the local population adopt Russian high culture. Yet-no matter how ambiguous and inconsistent was the official drive to include Little Russians into a greater Russian nation-the authorities were alarmed to discover an alternate project of moulding an ethnically Ukrainian population into a modern Ukrainian nation with its own high culture. Consequently, since the 1860s, the imperial government persecuted the Ukrainian language and culture. The first chapter of Miller's book provides a well-informed interpretive survey of Russia's Ukrainian question during the first half of the nineteenth century. Based on the archives of Moscow and St. Petersburg as well as a large number of published sources, the following twelve chapters focus on the government's Ukrainian policy under Alexander II (1855-1881). During this period, the Ukrainian patriotic intellectuals, the so-called Ukrainophiles, developed and popularized Ukrainian high culture and the principal symbols of modern Ukrainian national identity. Before the Ukrainophiles made any significant progress, however, the Valuev Circular Letter of 1863 forbade the publication in Ukrainian of textbooks, religious books, and all works that could be classified as primary reading for the common people. …

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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