Mesto Rossii v Evrope: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii by Gyula s> Szv�k (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REVIEWS 347 indeed the use of romanilor moldoveni 'Moldavian Romanians' in the very title invites the question 'Why not moldovenilor roma'ni'Romanian Moldavians'? since many of the people Ghimpu is talkingabout now live in the Republic of Moldova (I will not confuse mattersby repeating the debate about the use in Englishof Moldavia and Moldova). The issue of a distinctMoldovan identity is raisedbut then dismissedon linguisticgrounds,while the cleavage between Moldovanswho considerthemselvesRomanian and those -including native speakersof Romanian who do not is ignored. In spiteof theselacunae Ghimpu'sbook deservesaplace in thebibliography of studies of Romanian national consciousness. It is well-documented, introduces evidence from sources in Russian and other Slavonic languages, and in this respect offersadditional perspectivesto the history of Romanian national identity. School ofSlavonic andEastEuropean Studies DENNIS DELETANT Urniversity College London Szvak, Gyula (ed.). MestoRossiiv Evrope. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii. Magyar Ruszisztikai Intezet, Budapest,I999. 271 pp. Notes. Price unknown. JFworksof collective authorshipare often difficultto review, proceedings of internationalconferences areyet more challenging, and the presentvolume is in this respect perfectly characteristic. Here are the papers of thirty-six scholars presented at a conference organized and sponsored by the new Centre for Russian Studies at Lorand Eotvos University in Budapestin May of I998. Though the title of the volume does not indicate it, in fact the coverage extends from the early Kievan era to the end of the eighteenth century. Approximatelyhalf the contributingscholarsare Hungarian, eleven are Russian, five are Anglo-American, and one is German. About three quarters of the papers are published in Russian, the remainder in English. The contributorsthemselvesrangefrom internationallyrenowned scholarsto newcomersjust making their professional debut (judging by works represented in large American university library catalogues). Naturally, there are problems of coherence and pertinence and problems of adherence to the announced theme, generically defined though it is. Not suirprisingly, an occasional paper exhibits no apparent relationship to the general subject matter or concentrates exclusively on a single country, thus avoiding the comparative spirit of the conference (all such papers will be ignored here). The first two pages of the paper of Philip Longworth (McGill University), 'Muscovy and the "Antemurale Christianitatis"', are blank (the only such example), which is a shame, as the remainder suggests an interesting commenit on the Polish, papal, and Muscovite conceptions of the role of Russia as a bridge and/or barrier betwveen Europe and Asia. MAIrtaFont (Janus Pannonius University) compares the different sources of influence in the evolution of Russian and Hungarian medieval law. Mikhail Iurasov (Russian State Humanities University) examines the role of the Magyars in the formation of the Kievan state. N. M. Rogozhin (Russian Academy of 348 SEER, 79, 2, 200I Sciences) exploits the documentation of Russian embassies to the West to emphasize the extent and degree of Russian diplomatic involvement in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Istvan VAsalry (Lorand Eotvos University)considersthe question why Muscovite Russia was considered barbarian by early modern Europe. Ann M. Kleimola (University of Nebraska) focuses on Evfrosin'ia Staritskaia in order to juxtapose the involvement of Russian and European women in the arts.Ludwig Steindorff (WVestfalische Wilhelms-Universitat)points out the manner in which monastic discipline in Russia and Europe enhanced the regimentation of modern life, especially as evidenced in Russia in the Domostroi. A. P. Pavlov (Russian Academy of Sciences) has anotherlook, an interestingone, at the significance of the zemskie soborg and their differencesfrom analogous European popular assemblies. Sergei Filippov (Lorand Eotvos University) concentrates on the Grecophile tendencies of the seventeenth-century Russian church Peter MIogila,PatriarchNikon, the Kievan Slaviano-Greko-LatinAcademy and compares the Russian experience with Henry VIII's English Reformation. Andras Zoltan (LorandEotvos University)is concerned with the influence of West Slavicand Latinchanceryvocabularyin East Slavicdocuments (hedoes not address the controversy over the Kurbskii-Groznyi apocrypha). Antal Bartha(LorandEotvosUniversity)examinesthe common democraticfeatures of the Finnish communes of Scandinavia and those of the East Finnish peoples, the Mari and Udmurts. Klara Radn6ti (Hungarian National Museum) maintains that the Italianswere more conversantwith Muscovy in the sixteenth century than any other European people; she cites multiple accounts that preceded that of Herberstein.N. V. Riasanovsky(Universityof California)presents a precis of his book on the image of Peter I in Russian thought. Sandor Gebei...
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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.
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".