<i>A Chto Sluchilos'?</i>: Ethnographies of Holding It Together
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This essay by sociocultural anthropologists of Russia working in the North American academy considers rupture in three ways. First, we review rupture as a theoretical concept that ethnographers have both used and contested in making sense of the end of the Soviet Union, to inform our reading of the present moment. Second, we think about what political and social relationships the war has made speakable and for whom, at a time when the possibilities of free expression in Russia carry novel risks. Anthropologists working with indigenous and ethnic minorities in Russia have long insisted on the country’s internal plurality. Drawing on this scholarship, we discuss the ways in which plurality has been freshly repoliticized in the context of the war in Ukraine, while carrying forward some of the legacies of its Soviet orchestration. Third, we observe that the 2022 invasion of Ukraine marks a rupture for ethnographers in the way we do fieldwork in and of Russia. In response, we call for a scholarly praxis of suturing together multiple scales of analysis, digital and geographic locations and incommensurable perspectives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".