Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines Volkhovskii’s activities in the years immediately following his flight from Siberian Exile. After a few months in Canada, where he gave lectures to audiences about the plight of Russians who opposed the tsarist government, he moved to England where he was reunited with his old friend Sergei Stepniak. Stepniak had over the previous few years worked hard to encourage more positive views about Russian revolutionaries among the British public, helping to set up the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom and its newspaper Free Russia. The Society attracted much of its support from Liberal nonconformists like the influential solicitor Robert Spence Watson, although many Fabians also joined the Society, along with a small number of radical socialists such as William Morris. Following his arrival in London, Volkhovskii quickly became an important contributor to Free Russia, writing pieces on subjects ranging from the Russian police through to the plight of Siberian exiles, and often served as de facto editor in place of Stepniak. He also became close to some important literary figures in Britain, including Edward and Constance Garnett, encouraging Constance to learn Russian, which in turn set her on the path to becoming the leading translator of Russian literature in Britain. Volkhovskii was also active in the Russian Free Press Fund, which produced radical literature for distribution among Russian émigré communities and for smuggling into Russia itself. He edited the newssheet Letuchie listki which was designed to appeal to all elements in the Russian opposition movement, reflecting Volkhovskii’s view that greater unity was required among all those critical of the tsarist government, a perspective shared by Stepniak. Both men were careful when writing for a western audience to argue that members of the Russian revolutionary movement were typically interested in securing political reform rather than wholesale social and economic revolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.019 |
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".