Transition to Latin Alphabet (20s of the Twentieth Century) Modern Reality Is a Result of Historical Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1920s, a number of processes began to take place in the new structure that arose in the collapsed geography of the Russian Empire. One of these processes was the transition of peoples to the "Latin" alphabet, which is also called "Latinization" in the world scientific literature. One of the least covered problems of the processes that took place in different geographical regions after the collapse of empires is the problem of "Latinization". Thus, "Latinization", which played an important role in world cultural history, is still interpreted by various sources and researchers without understanding the essence of the problem, and reflects an important historical event in political and national interests.The entry of the modern world into the global information space with the help of the Latin alphabet has revived the attitude of people to the Latin alphabet. A number of countries are being taught two alphabets in order to preserve the national alphabet, and in some countries they are working to transform the national alphabet. Of course, rational thinking sees and accepts the irreversible process of transition to a single global alphabet. While this trend stems from the need for technology in the 21st century, it was high on the agenda in the 1920s for ideological reasons. Experts have the mass transition of people to the "Latin alphabet" that took place in the 20s of the last century as a process of Latinization. Researchers cannot give an unambiguous answer, what was the transition of the Turkic peoples to a single alphabet? Was this an appeal of the Muslim peoples to a single alphabet? Or was it the USSR's search for a single means of communication for the world "proletariat"?The article will attempt to explain the historical context of the Latinization process, the role of the Azerbaijani factor in this process and the essence of various tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".