Debates on Narodnost in Russian Intellectual Culture: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow (“Round Table” Materials)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2024, a “round-table” was held on the topic: “Debates on Narodnost in Russian Intellectual Culture: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow”. The discussion was initiated by the journal Voprosy Filosofii and by representatives of the research project No. 24-18-00651, “The Ontology of the Nation in Russian Neo-Kantianism”, carried out at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University and supported by the Russian Science Foundation. Leading domestic philosophers-epistemologists, political scientists, ethnographers, historians of philosophy, and young researchers of Russian Neo-Kantianism took part in the discussion. At the center of their attention was one of the most important global issues – national identity, which has gained particular urgency in the first quarter of the 21st century, as evidenced by current political and social processes surrounding us (migration, interethnic conflicts, the rise of national chauvinism, the disappearance of peoples and languages, etc.). Participants were invited to examine the issues of nation-building from within the Russian philosophical tradition, in the context of debates on the uniqueness and self-identification of Russia. These debates have become a constitutive backbone and conceptual core of Russian philosophy, acquiring not so much a pragmatic as a cultural-historical significance. Speakers focused on the historical transformations of the concepts of “narodnost”, “nation”, and “ethnos”, and examined possible configurations of national identity formation in various cultures. Special attention was also given to interpretations of the “nation” in the socio-philosophical and philosophical-methodological concepts of Russian Neo-Kantians such as V.M. Khvostov, P.I. Novgorodtsev, A.L. Sakketti, and M.M. Rubinstein.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".