Traditional Work Ban in the Light of the Transformation of Folk Holiday Calendar of the Population of Altai Region in the 20th – first quarter of the 21st Centuries (Based on Materials from Ethnographic Expeditions of 2013–2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author describes the issues of the traditional banning of agricultural activities and housework and the reasons for their blurring in the folk holiday calendar of the rural population of the Altai Territory in the 20th – first quarter of the 21st centuries. The author The adaptation forms of traditional bans that were typical for the second half of the 20th century are identified: the category of «collective farm work» as the work that is not subjected to banning, «housework» (cleaning inside the house, washing, work in the garden), the emergence of «compromises» in observing bans (one shouldn’t work «at least until lunch»), rescheduling cleaning work to a convenient time and day, etc. It is shown that violation of traditional ban on working on Easter Day (Easter period) was a tool of manipulation by local authorities (forced whitewashing of offices, planting of seedlings by choolchildren, work in youth brigades, etc.), which was a part of anti-religious propaganda. The author concludes that until the late 1960s and early 1970s, the traditional ban of housework on «big holidays» was observed in families; the older generation was watching over the tradition. The novelty of the study is that the author considers the issues of observing the traditional work ban with respect to the folk holiday calendar transformation on regional materials (Shipunovsky, Romanovsky, Kuryinsky, Mamontovsky, Aleysky, Volchikhinsky, Krasnoshchyokovsky, Charyshsky, and Ust-Pristansky districts of the Altai). The article is based on materials from field expeditions (interviews with villagers, photographs) conducted by the author in 2013–2024 as well as materials from rural periodicals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".