The Operation Successful, But the Patient Died. The Gradual Elimination of the Central European Peasantry in the Light of Globalization and Interwar Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In terms of “depeasantisation," it was with the EU accession in 2004 when Central Europe – including Hungary – reached the stage where England had already arrived in the 18th and Germany in the 19th century. The gradual disappearance of the peasantry in the continent is doubtless in connection with the tendencies of globalization, a phenomenon that could not be stopped even by the authoritarian regimes of the interwar period – the time period examined by the dissertation. However, in a latent way, the question had already arisen at the time: is peasantry necessary at all? Nevertheless, as a consequence of the defeat in World War I, there were important national political arguments for the preservation of peasantry in the region, together with the rise of peasant ideologies. After 1945 – as Barrington Moore, the ideologist of the Cold War, pointed out – the huge peasant masses meant the precondition for not only the creation of fascism but also for Eastern European socialism. Therefore, many problems had to be swept under the carpet. But the issue can be better understood once it is examined along the “development slope." In this aspect, many experts in new comparisons drew attention to the key role of Germany. Following the footsteps of the Canadian historian Scott M. Eddie, the author of this article compares the agrarian societies of two areas dominated by large estates, Pomerania and Somogy county, with a special focus on the significance of identity. The research questions were the following: what were the chances of the peasantry in those areas in the grip of modernity and large estates? To what extent had this process altered identity? In order to map the latter methodologically, the study required a wide interdisciplinary examination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".