Stage adaptations of «Taras Bulba» in the 2nd half of the 19th – the early 20th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to dramatic adaptations of Nikolai Gogol’s story “Taras Bulba” that appeared in the 2nd half of the 19th to the early 20th century. The author focuses on those that were staged. The purpose of the work is to find out how popular the stage adaptations of this work were, what features they had and what determined the nature of the interpretations of “Taras Bulba”. Of the numerous dramatisations of the story created in the period under review (mainly in the last quarter of the 19th century), only a few had a fairly long stage life. These include the drama by K.D. Efimovich and N.I. Kulikov, the first version of which appeared during Gogol’s lifetime, but was banned by the censor, and two “dramatic performances” by A.Ya. Alekseev-Yakovlev, as well as plays by K.I. Vanchenko (Pisanetsky) and A.F. Shatkovsky in the Ukraine language. The theatrical fate of most other adaptations of “Taras Bulba” is unknown. At the same time, in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, dramatic adaptations of the story were popular on the Russian stage and numerous troupes included them in the repertoire, as those adaptations proved to be spectacular and corresponding to the melodramatic nature of productions aimed at a wide range of admirers. It was these features that the authors of the stage adaptations of “Taras Bulba” paid attention to.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".