MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406770788 · doi:10.21827/ejlw.14.42448

Samira Saramo, Building That Bright Future: Soviet Karelia in the Life Writing of Finnish North Americans

2025· article· en· W4406770788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynn Domina

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Life Writing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Building That Bright Future: Soviet Karelia in the Life Writing of Finnish North Americans, Samira Saramo has written an interesting and clear study of a significant but little-known series of events in world history. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, over 300,000 Finns immigrated to the United States and Canada, often settling in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and northern Wisconsin and Minnesota. During the early 1930s, many of these immigrants were actively recruited to return, not to Finland proper but to Karelia, a frequently-disputed region on the border of Finland and what was then the Soviet Union. Many of these Finns tended politically toward socialism and perceived the Soviet Union as a favorable sign of the kind of future they believed in. Simultaneously, they were attractive to members of the Karelian leadership because they were more educated than most residents of the region and were assumed to have greater access to tools, machinery, and other financial resources. Eventually, about 6500 North American Finns moved to Karelia, where they were met with significant social and physical challenges. Many of them eventually died during the Stalinist Great Terror.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Life WritingSame topicVietnamese History and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207