MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379413039 · doi:10.1353/see.2021.0044

Kaplunovsky , Alexander Kusber , Jan Conrad , Benjamin The Enigmatic Tsar and His Empire: Russia under Alexander I. 1801â1825 (review)

2021· article· en· W4379413039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick O’Meara

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Slavonic and East European Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicJoseph Conrad and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacabreEmperorDepictionCzechArcadiaSoulAfterlifePurgatoryIconographyArtEmpireHistoryFifteenthClassicsLiteraturePhilosophyArt historyAncient historyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

REVIEWS 177 discussions of the more recently discovered artworks in Broumov, Český Krumlov and Prague. Rywiková’s ability to use them to underline not only the importance of the Czech lands in the late medieval period as expressed through these works, but also the ways in which the unique religious environment there is reflected in the work is masterful. Some of Rywiková’s more interesting findings include a fifteenth-century depiction of The Triumph of Death from the Old Prelature of Český Krumlov where death is depicted riding a wooden hobby-horse, combining depictions of deathandthefoolinmedievalartasapotentTriumphofDeath.Herethecadaver serves as a forceful reminder that death can carry off young and old alike, and that ignoring one’s religious obligations can result in the ultimate eschatological death of the soul (pp. 200–01). Rywiková’s study also helps the arguments of other Czech art historians such as Alexander Patschovsky in actively identifying the figure of Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg in a Dance with Death in the famous Bible of the Hussite Priest (p. 172) My critiques of this work are few, and the first is that I simply would have liked more. I agree wholeheartedly with Rywiková’s note in the Appendix that the Czech lands are unique in the completeness of late medieval macabre iconography because of the influence and power of the Luxembourg court. Ideally, I would have liked to see Rywiková address this at further length. Otherwise the only flaw is not the fault of Rywiková, but rather her copy editors who have not managed to engage robustly enough with the difficulties of translating Czech into English and in particularly the difficulty of articles. Rywiková’s lucid and intricate work is done a disservice by a number of missing definite articles which a simple copy edit by a native English speaker would quickly flag up. This is a disappointment in a work with such a large potential audience and of such fine quality research, and the author has been let down here. Nevertheless, Speculum Mortis remains an important work and a welcome addition to English-language work on the medieval Czech lands. Department of International History Eleanor Janega The London School of Economics Kaplunovsky, Alexander; Kusber, Jan and Conrad, Benjamin (eds). The Enigmatic Tsar and His Empire: Russia under Alexander I. 1801–1825. Transformations. Differentiations. Perspectives. Mainz Studies on the Modern Age, 5. Peter Lang, Berlin, New York and Oxford, 2019. 378 pp. Illustrations. Notes. References. Index. €65.40: £54.00: $78.95. Given the relative paucity of new publications in any language on the history of Russia under Alexander I, the appearance of this intriguingly entitled SEER, 99, 1, JANUARY 2021 178 monograph is, on the face of it, to be welcomed. It is, in fact, a collection of fifteen articles by fourteen scholars, of whom six are based in Germany, seven in Russia and one in Canada. It is the fifth volume in the series, ‘Mainz Studies on the Modern Age’, but the first to be devoted to a Russian theme. It is also the first to be published in English rather than German, though no translator is credited. It derives from an international conference held in March 2017 at the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz on the theme ‘in search of narratives for the Alexandrine age’, where we are assured that the ‘lively discussions on the conceptualization of the Alexandrine epoch’ proved to be ‘intellectually fun for the organizers’ (p. 5). The resulting sbornik, as the editors state at the outset, is an attempt to ‘demonstrate that Alexandrine Russia may be interpreted as a “laboratory” in whichdifferentpotentialscenariosformodernisationweredesigned,discussed, and tested — but also rejected and forgotten’ (p. 10). In his introductory chapter, ‘Alexander I, the Russian Empire, and the “Sattelzeit” 1790–1830’, Jan Kusber suggests that the epoch ‘lacks a clear political character’, remains ‘highly underresearched’ (p. 33), and might be described as ‘Sattelzeit’ in Russia. Oddly, however, Reinhart Koselleck’s compound noun (literally: ‘saddle-time’) is not given any corresponding English equivalent which might have helped readers better understand its sense and intention. It is, after all, a coinage perhaps not as well-established in historical discourse as Kusber appears to suppose. The remaining thirteen...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Slavonic and East European ReviewSame topicJoseph Conrad and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207