The Pugachev uprising in the historiography of Central and Western Europe in the first quarter of the 21st century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For thirty years now, the history of the Pugachev uprising has been experiencing a rapid process of rethinking the analytical categories and interpretations that had been used in historiography seventy years before. This process of rethinking has gone so far as to completely overturn achievements traditionally considered firmly established, with a consequent fragmentation of the theoretical foundations on which they rested. New interpretations, developing at different times, in different ways and with different goals, stemmed from a common beginning - criticism of the Marxist interpretation of the uprising. Revisiting the Soviet interpretation of the Pugachev uprising as a class war between peasants and nobles, English-language and European writers outside Russia emphasized other aspects of the uprising, especially when it came to the movement to restore Cossack autonomy and the protest of peripheral ethnic groups and nationalities. This article aims to demonstrate how this thesis of the peripheral revolt has shown in recent years that it still leaves several places open for further thought, and what its recent updates have been in the historiography of Central and Western Europe.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".