The territorial issue in the concepts of Ukrainian state formation of the end of the 19th – the first quarter of the 20th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important problems that arose during the collapse of the Austrian and Russian empires, the First World War and the national revolution of 1917–1921 was the definition of the territory and borders of the Ukrainian state. In contrast to Russian historians and jurists, who, under the influence of the Russian centralization ideology of the 19th and early 20th centuries, ignored territorial and local issues,Ukrainian historians and jurists paid a lot of attention to highlighting these issues. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. in Europe, new scientific trends — political geography and geopolitics — were formed and spread, which served to substantiate the idea that it was the peculiarities of geographical territories that caused «the division of individual countries and the creation of individual nations». Since in the process of restoration of the Ukrainian state there were particularly sharp disputes about the territory, a significant part of Ukrainian geopolitical concepts was based on geographical and natural resource factors that determined the fate of peoples and states. The political and scientific projects of the formation of the territory of the cathedral Ukrainian state and the state borders of Ukraine were based on the ethnic principle, formed on the basis of the combination of the assets of new directions of European science — political geography and geopolitics with Ukrainian traditions of state formation. According to the majority of Ukrainian politicians and scientists, the process of Ukrainian national state formation was conditioned, in addition to social factors, primarily by geographical and resource factors, which in all nations played a decisive role in the formation of a national state. Key words: the territory of the Ukrainian state, the Ukrainian ethnic territory, the concepts of Ukrainian state formation, the conciliar of Ukrainian lands, the borders of the Ukrainian state.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".