"Friend / Foe" - intergenerational relationships between Russian historians of the first quarter of the XX century.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of intergenerational relations of historians of the late XIX early XX century and young historians, students of the Institute of Red Professors. On the example of the text of the review by A.A. Kizevetter for a collection of works by young historians edited by M.N. Pokrovsky highlighted the key problems through which the conflict of generations of historians is revealed within the scientific community of the first quarter of the twentieth century. The first problem is that A.A. Kiesewetter, like other historians of the older generation, assessed the young generation of historians through the prism of a personal attitude towards M.N. Pokrovsky, hence the negative attitude towards the works of historians. The second problem is the disagreement with young researchers in assessing the activities of historians of the senior school. The third is the inaccuracy in the interpretation of historical sources and, most importantly, the categorical nature of young historians. According to A.A. Kiesewetter, young researchers lacked the critical thinking necessary when working with historical material. Pre-revolutionary historiography was rejected as obsolete. The situation of the socio-cultural crisis and the revolution of 1917 created the basis for the formation of a generational conflict. The pre-revolutionary system of evolutionary development and conflict-free transfer of experience was destroyed, and as a result, dialogue between generations did not work out. Each of the generations tried to prove its own significance in scientific activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".