WAYS OF DEVELOPMENT OF KOMI POETRY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH - FIRST QUARTER OF THE 21ST CENTURIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the process of the historical development of Komi poetry in the 1946-2020s. The author's composition of several periods is presented in detail: the first post-war decade, 1960-1980s, 1990-2000s. The closest attention is paid to the characteristics of the work of the leading poets of these years: I. Vavilin, S. Popov, F. Shcherbacov, A. Vaneev, V. Popov, G. Yushkov, A. Misharina, V. Timin, G. Butyreva, A. Luzhikov; their main genre and thematic preferences are determined. For the first time, the description of the unified process of development of Komi poetry in the second half of the 20 - first quarter of the 21 centuries includes the newest period of the 1990s - 2000s in its connection with previous periods. A review of poetic works (poems and verses) over several decades led to the conclusion that Komi poetry since the end of the Great Patriotic War has gone through a difficult, ambiguous of development. It suffered significant losses during the repression of the 1930s and during the war years, but was able to recover and reach a new level of development. During these years, several generations of authors took part in the development of Komi poetry, turning in their work to the development of a variety of topics, genres, forms. The process of mastering by poetry in different periods of genres of European and Eastern literatures is especially noted: rubai, sonnet and wreath of sonnets, vers libre, tanka, hokku. The development of such a major lyric-epic genre of poetry as a poem is traced as one of the most important in the work.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".