The Legitimization Discourse of Virtue Education Under Dictatorship and Its Reception in the Schools of Soviet Latvia from 1947 to 1982
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses the official legitimization discourse of Soviet virtue education and its reception in school practice in Latvia. The sources capturing the official discourse were two teacher training books (1948 and 1971) and three collections of scientific papers by Latvian academics (1962, 1964, and 1967). A random sample of 10 student characterizations (graduation reports) per year from 1947 till 1982 (N=367) was used for capturing the discourse reception in school practice. The comparison of the virtue system emerging from the 3,054 mentions to students’ virtues found in the characterizations with the official Soviet virtue system revealed many similarities and also notable differences and surprising omissions: “collectivism” held a preeminent position both in the official discourse and in school practice, and “discipline” lost relative weight in both spheres, but surprisingly, the officially important “patriotism” and “internationalism” were almost absent in the characterizations. Implications for practice and further research are discussed. Keywords: legitimization discourse, school practice, Soviet Latvia, student characterizations, virtue education
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".