The Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War of 1917–1922 in the historiosophical optics of M.A. Voloshin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION . M.A. Voloshin’s work contains a unique depth and breadth of historiosophical reflection on the catastrophe of the first quarter of the 20th century – the Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent Civil War of 1917–1922. The purpose of the study is to analyze M.A. Voloshin’s historiosophical discourse on Russia, its distinctive features in the historical and metahistorical contexts of the tragic events of the first quarter of the 20th century. MATERIALS AND METHODS . The main research material is the poetic work of M.A. Voloshin (1917–1924), rough diary sketches, as well as journalistic articles, primarily “The Russian Abyss” (1919) and “Russia Crucified” (1920). In the course of the research, we used comparative historical and cultural historical analysis methods. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. M.A. Voloshin, using the dual optics of perception of reality (the biblical and ancient paradigms), offers the reader a complex and multilevel model of interpretation of what is happening. The poet’s understanding of revolution and internecine war is carried out through the use of biblical (Messianism, redemption, apocalypse) and ancient (symbolism, antinomianism) concepts, as well as through references to historical realities of the past. CONCLUSION . The historiosophical system of M.A. Voloshin’s views, reflected in the poet’s work, is a unique phenomenon in the history of Russian thought. Turning to various contexts (history/meta-history), using complex concepts, the poet offers the reader his own vision of the causes of the Revolution of 1917, the Civil War of 1917–1922 and their consequences, invariably comprehending the processes of subspecie aeternitatis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".