Російське населення Східної України (за матеріалами Всесоюзного перепису населення 1926 року).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article, based on the analysis of materials of All-Union census of 1926, the number of Russian population of East Ukraine (modern Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk regions) has been established; the peculiarities of its place in the settlement and ethnic structure of the region have been defined. The author notes that in 1926 in the East of Ukraine almost half of the total Russian population of USSR was centered. Having analyzed the allocation of Russians among the districts in the east of Ukraine, it can be stipulated that most of the Russian population, both urban and rural, were concentrated in Kharkiv district, due to the peculiarities of the settlement of its territory, proximity to the Russian border and the capital status of the city of Kharkiv, which attracted migrants to the county, including from neighboring Russian regions. The analysis of the ethnic structure of the population of Eastern Ukraine led to the conclusion that the Russians did not constitute the majority of the population, quantitatively yielding Ukrainians in all districts. Among residents of urban settlements of Stalin, Lugansk and Mariupol regions, and in mining towns Dmitrivs’ke and Stalin, the Russians formed the majority, whereas in rural East Ukraine they constituted quarter of the population, with the exception of Luhansk province where there were areas of the densely populated Don Cossacks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.062 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".