The Bazar Tragedy in Commemorative Practices during the Period of Ukraine’s Independence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to analyze the commemorative practices related to the Bazar Tragedy of November 1921 during the period of Ukraine’s independence. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that, for the first time, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the commemorative practices of the late 20th and the first quarter of the 21st century concerning the Bazar Tragedy. As a result, the author concludes that during Ukraine’s independence, the commemorative practices associated with the Bazar Tragedy of November 1921 acquired a consistent and systemic character, becoming an important element of the national memory policy. The central place among these practices is occupied by the commemoration of the heroes of the Volyn Group of the Second Winter Campaign of the Ukrainian People’s Republic Army, executed by the Bolsheviks in 1921, primarily near the Heroes of Bazar Memorial. Commemoration is manifested through the installation of memorial signs, the organization of the All-Ukrainian festival “Heroes of Bazar”, the creation of documentary films, and the holding of academic events. Another expression of these commemorative practices is the emergence of toponyms named in honor of the participants of the Second Winter Campaign and the Bazar Tragedy. In turn, as a result of decommunization and derussification policies, toponyms named after Hryhorii Kotovskyi were renamed, and monuments and memorial signs dedicated to this Bolshevik figure were dismantled.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".