The Indigenous Citizens of Igarka: Colonial Discourse and Socialist Modernity in the Arctic Soviet Cityin the 1930s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public history of the first Arctic Soviet city in the 1930s tells about the drifts and receptions of colonial discourse and ideas about socialist modernity. In the initial era of Stalinist industrialization, the colonial imagination about Indigenous peoples was completely connected with the policy of collectivization. At the same time, this economic policy of forcibly uniting the Indigenes was accompanied by the creation of a category of agitators from among the Indigenous population itself. Students of the Party School, returning to their native places, told other Indigenes how to live well under the collective farm system. This colonial policy of Igarka’s city managers remained largely an ironic compromise of discursive mimicry until the end of 1934. After the political activists of Glavsevmorput came to power, the ideology of technocratism began to totally dominate the public discourse of Igarka. The new polar explorers, who were convinced of the creation of the Northern Sea Route, set a course for the sedentarization of the Indigenous population and introducing it to life in socialist modernity. Technocrats dramatically intensified political agitation, making the image of Igarka as a socialist industrial center of the Arctic the main propaganda weapon. In their rationalizing imagination, colonial rhetoric took the form of city discourse, in which a prosperous life as in a city was declared an achievable ideal for native collective farmers who had moved from the simplest production association to a collective farm according to the Stalinist charter of artel.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".