Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to studying the history of Russian Old Believers’ emigration to Brazil, to analyzing the reasons that allowed them to maintain their linguistic identity, and to identifying the features of the dialect of the Russian language of the Old Believers living in Latin America and in Brazil, in particular. Old Believers moved to Brazil after centuries of oppression, as a result of which they first left Central Russia for the East of the country, Siberia and Primorye, and after the 1917 Revolution, many of them moved to Harbin (China). After the 1949 Revolution in China, they turned to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who sent them to the United States, Canada, Australia and Brazil. Brazil was the first country to grant them visas. The main wave of Old Believers’ migration to Brazil falls on 1957–58, that is why they managed to avoid the policy of nationalization of the New State, carried out in 1937–1945 by Getúlio Vargas, whose goal was to turn all immigrants into Brazilian citizens by banning their native language not only in official but also in everyday communication. Thus, the Old Believers managed to fully preserve their religious, cultural and linguistic identity due to a certain hermeticism of their communities and the preservation of their traditional way of life. The dialect of the Old Believers of Brazil retains the typical features of the Nizhny Novgorod dialect of the 19th century, in which archaic linguistic features and semantic shifts in the meaning of words were conserved. However, it also contains lexical innovations denoting new concepts of modern life, Spanish and Portuguese borrowings and their adaptation. At the beginning of the 21st century, within the framework of the State Program to Assist the Voluntary Resettlement to Russia of Compatriots Living Abroad, several Old Believer families decided to return to Russia, to Primorye, thus completing their round-the-world trip.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".