Bibliographic record
Abstract
What Can Ukraine Teach Us about the Modern World?The historian of modern Ukraine is subject to two kinds of pressure.The first comes from people who wistfully express the desire for a "feelgood history of Ukraine," one that would focus on "positive" factors instead of tragedies like the Holodomor or World War II.Recently a friend of mine, musing about such matters, asked me to imagine that Jonathan Swift had written such a book.In fact, Swift once did, namely, his infamous satirical essay with its intentionally grotesque arguments "modestly proposing" that Ireland's poor resolve their wretched situation by selling their children as food to the rich.A Swiftian take like this one on Ukraine's history might have similarly novel and dramatic effect, but that is not the goal of my work.While there will be no more mention of the Holodomor or World War II here -for the obvious reason that they happened beyond the times I address -the book at hand is hardly a "feel-good" history, especially considering the context in which the book was completed -during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.That said, in writing it I endeavored to keep in mind readers like my friend, a non-academic with a genuine interest in the history of modern Ukraine and its place in eastern Europe.The second pressure comes from a very different source.It is the challenge any historian of Ukraine feels working in the shadow of the great and prolific historian Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi.His monumental, multivolume History of Ukraine-Rus', now available in a highly readable and accomplished English translation produced by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, ends with the mid-seventeenth century.For all his scholarly productivity, Hrushevs'kyi did not write comprehensively about the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as he did for the earlier centuries.Among other things, revolutionary politics, including x
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".