Why together, why apart? An epistolary discussion about Yugoslavia and its remnants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this unusual contribution, three prominent younger scholars of the post-Yugoslav region discuss through a series of letters what was socialist Yugoslavia as political community and what came to replace it. Igor Štiks claims that every political community, past and present, is based on the citizenship argument that imposes itself as hegemonic. He explains why we are together as community in the first place, who belongs, and who is excluded. Štiks tries to understand what arguments socialist Yugoslavia was built on and what were the arguments used to subvert and finally destroy it. Ivan Đorđević responds by highlighting how the new states were built on a combination of ethnic nationalism and savage capitalism, resulting in a series of disasters. Biljana Đorđević explains the life of her post-Yugoslav generation and its sense of gloom. All three authors contrast political events with their own destinies that were determined by where (Sarajevo, Belgrade, Vranje) and when (in 1977 and 1984) they were born, and under what circumstances, personal and political, they came of age. Besides their attempts to understand Yugoslavia’s disintegration and the new post-Yugoslav reality, they reflect upon what the Yugoslav socialist legacy could mean for emancipatory movements in the twenty-first century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".