Disaster as a formative experience: the Leningrad flood of 1924
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical Disaster Studies – an emerging subfield of environmental history and memory – probes disasters as socially constructed political events that take place over time. Scholars of the Soviet Union are far from new to the study of disasters, as many policies and projects have been considered in light of calamities that either hindered socialist construction or demonstrated deep-seated failures of Soviet policy, science, and technology. Yet few scholars approach disasters in the Soviet Union as critical moments of state-building, in which narratives of confrontation, recovery, and reconstruction became integral means of justifying party rule. This article examines the Leningrad flood of 1924 not only as one of the Soviet Union’s first “natural” disasters, but as one that strengthened the Communist Party’s stature and propaganda machine. It expands, furthermore, on the conceptual relationship between disaster and state formation, revealing how local concerns like flood risk became tethered to the party leadership’s legitimacy through commitment to mobilizing scientific, technical, and civil efforts to mitigate and eradicate floods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".