Interdisciplinary Vectors of Folkloristics in the First Quarter of the 21st Century: Forms and Functions of Folklore in the Digital Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to reveal the forms and functions of folklore in the context of interdisciplinary vectors of folkloristics in the first quarter of the 21st century and to highlight the mechanisms of preserving and acquiring new qualities of tradition in the process of cultural transmission. Methodology. The theoretical basis consists of contemporary concepts of semiotics, ethnolinguistics, cognitive and philosophical anthropology, axiological hermeneutics, social psychology, and media anthropology. The use of axiological, historical-analytical, and systemic approaches ensured the functional, communicative, anthropological, and contextual analysis of folklore in the context of digitalisation and intermedial interaction. The scientific novelty lies in the identification and interpretation of new forms and functions of folklore in the digital environment and the clarification of the current interdisciplinary vectors of folklore studies in the first quarter of the 21st century. Folklore is understood as an open system of cultural meanings, a semiotic resource capable of intermedial interaction, creative rethinking, and the generation of new meanings, as well as a ‘social technology’ of collective memory and local identity. An analytical model of folklore as a dynamic instrument of cultural communication is proposed. The concept of ‘soft traditionalism’ is understood as a strategy for maintaining a connection with folk tradition in modern conditions. Conclusions. Folklore studies in the first quarter of the 21st century function as a comprehensive field of humanities knowledge that integrates cognitive, axiological, communicative, anthropological, and aesthetic approaches. Folklore appears as an open system of cultural meanings and a semiotic resource capable of intermedial interaction, creative rethinking, and the generation of new meanings. Despite changing social paradigms, it remains relevant and demonstrates adaptability in the digital age, forming new communicative models and mechanisms of collective cultural memory and identification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".