Dynamics of Animal Husbandry Production in the Sverdlovsk region in the First Post-war Years (1946-1950)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the dynamics of the gross production of the main livestock products in the Sverdlovsk region in one of the most interesting and problematic periods in the history of the Soviet state. The novelty of the study is ensured by the use of mostly unpublished materials from five state and departmental archives. The paper studies the dynamics of livestock production in monetary and natural (honey, milk, meat, wool, eggs) types in 19461950, a comparative analysis is carried out with the results of the development of the industry on the eve and at the end of the Great Patriotic War. It has been established that animal husbandry in the Sverdlovsk region emerged from the war in a better condition than in the whole country, and the most difficult years for it were 19461947. Starting from 1948, there was an increase in the production of meat, milk, wool and eggs in the region. As a result, in the five post-war years, the gross output of the industry in the Sverdlovsk region in value terms increased by more than a quarter. At the same time, during the years of the fourth five-year plan, the average annual production in the industry significantly exceeded the level of both 1945 and 1940. It was established that the main producer in animal husbandry were individual farms of the population, which accounted for almost 2/3 of the products received. The authors come to the conclusion that this happened, despite the various restrictions of the state on its development. A feature of the Sverdlovsk region in those years was the fact that among all categories of producers, the farms of workers and employees provided the most livestock products, which can be explained by the industrial specialization of the territory and the high proportion of the urban population in it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".