Изменение мировоззрения российских меннонитов и разрушение их сообщества
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article raises the problems of the Mennonite community's reflection on the reforms in Russian Empire as well as the modernization of social, political and economic environment in 1861–1914, during the First World War, the recurring power changes and political anarchy in Ukraine during the Civil War. The author examines the Mennonites' attempts to adjust the changes in reality, the cause-and-effect relationships of arising social crisis which ultimately led to the destruction of the ethnoreligious community's canonical foundations. The research bases on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (given in their diaries), memoirs and other published materials. The author examines the gradual deviation processes among the Mennonite society that were transforming the fundamental statements of the congregations’ doctrine and their moral norms and traditions. It is analyzed whether the Russian-Ukrainian Mennonites remained an ethno-religious conglomerate or lost their inherent values. As a result it has been proved the following: the Mennonites in Russia in a short period from the beginning of the reforms of the 1860s – 1870s to the beginning of the 20th century, went from a close-knit religious community to an opened and spiritually weakened unification. During the period of “challenges and reactions” of the First World War and the Civil War, the leaders of the community were unable to maintain the unity and cohesion, a complex of moral and ethical markers, pacifist views, social institutions, which led to a deformation of values and disorientation in further actions. Only a small part of the Mennonites society was able to organize itself and, thanks to the support of the Canadian Mennonites communities, it emigrated in 1923–1926 and thus avoided the Bolshevik regime repressions. Key words: the Mennonites, World War I, Civil War, Makhno, identity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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.
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".