MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methods of religious self-identification in a situation of social confrontation: Russian society at the end of the 19th – first quarter of the 20th century (based on materials by religious scholar A.S. Prugavin)

2024· article· en· W4391546678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalia Kuznetsova, Boris B. Sazhin

Bibliographic record

VenueOOO Zhurnal Voprosy Istorii · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Self identificationIdentification (biology)Late 19th centurySociologySocial scienceHistoryPhilosophyAestheticsGender studiesPeriod (music)Archaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with the problem of religious self-identification in Russian society during the period of historical upheavals - the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries and the first quarter of the 20th century. The relevance of the research is due to the ongoing search for a compromise between the confessional branches of Orthodoxy today. Society and the government in Russia are looking for a common social and spiritual foundation for Russian society. The question of religious searches in different parts of Russian society is considered in the article. The views and conclusions of representatives of various social movements are compared. The key attention in the text is paid to the views of populist researchers. The materials of the famous Russian religious scholar Alexander Stepanovich Prugavin are taken as the basis of the article. A review of publications and archival data has been compiled. Some of the materials are presented by Prugavins personal fund, which is located in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts. The views of the religious scholar on the possible path of development for contemporary Russia are analyzed. He singled out the Old Believers as a special social group in the country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOOO Zhurnal Voprosy IstoriiSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207