MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404837007 · doi:10.15353/whr.v10.6147

From Other to Brother: Western Travel Writers and the Remaking of Russia

2024· article· en· W4404837007 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryan Snopek

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterloo Historical Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrotherHistoryEconomic geographyGenealogyPolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The answer lies less in Russia and more in the socio-cultural climate of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Western Europe. By examining not only the accounts of Western travel writers to Europe but the writers themselves I will show how the “discovery” of Russia by Westerners was defined by Early Modern anxieties surrounding religion and society that emerged during the Reformation and Enlightenment. These travel writers especially the Germans Sigismund von Herberstein and Adam Olearius – a Catholic and an Evangelical Lutheran respectively – used Russia as a field on which to argue their own respective views on what an ideal moral society should look like in the process establishing Russia as an antithetical Other. In particular, they criticised Russian men as violent, licentious, and stupid drunks while Russian arranged marriages condemned women to essential slavery locked at home with husbands who expressed love for them only by beating them. In reforming Russian society Peter the Great responded to these exact criticisms, creating a new and outward-looking class of international aristocrats to represent Russia thereby de-othering it in the eyes of their Western European counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueWaterloo Historical ReviewSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207