Intervention of the Entente Powers and Their Allies in Russia During the Civil War (1918–1922): Modern Foreign Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The review is devoted to modern foreign literature on the military intervention of the Entente powers and their allies in Russia in 1918–1922. The centenary of the Russian Civil War is a suitable occasion to characterize the modern historiography of intervention and the prospects for its research. Methods and materials. In the analysis of the literature, historical-genetic, historical-typological and historical-comparative methods were used. Analysis. The centenary of the Civil War in Russia passes almost unnoticed in foreign historiography, which is also due to the shift of attention to the Russian revolution. The Russian Civil War is often considered as an integral part of the revolutionary era, so its research in recent years has not gone beyond the generalizing works on the history of the revolution. The intervention is in a more advantageous position, since the military personnel of the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, Canada, and Australia participated in it. Accordingly, the interest of researchers from these countries remains. Nevertheless, despite the “anniversaries” of the landings of Allied troops in Arkhangelsk, Transcaucasia and Vladivostok, operations in the Baltic and Siberia, only a small number of monographs and articles were published. A certain surge of interest is visible in popular science books about the operations of British and American troops in the North of Russia, but their authors used a small number of sources and did not present fundamentally new conclusions. Results. The “jubilee” historiography of the intervention is quite modest, but the topic of intervention has prospects due to numerous “white spots”, a lot of unexplored sources. The topic of foreign interventions remains relevant for the modern world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".