19世纪至20世纪初欧洲俄国的粮食产量动态:对问题的了解程度

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. V. Sinitsyn
{"title":"19世纪至20世纪初欧洲俄国的粮食产量动态:对问题的了解程度","authors":"R. V. Sinitsyn","doi":"10.15826/izv2.2023.25.1.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the problems of research in national science of the dynamics of grain yields in European Russia between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For the purpose of the article, the author refers to crop statistics. Disputes about their reliability have been going on for about two hundred years, however, no irrefutable evidence of their unreliability has been presented. This is also true about the discussion of the early twenty-first century, where the source was criticised by B. N. Mironov and M. A. Davydov, and their opponents were S. A. Nefedov, A. V. Ostrovsky, and I. A. Kuznetsov. Interest in the dynamics of productivity emerged in the late nineteenth century. The focus of attention was the question of whether there was an increase in productivity in the period under review or not. At the turn of the twentieth century, A. F. Fortunatov and R. I. Preger maintained that productivity had increased, and I. Kh. Ozerov argued that it had not. In the 1920s, three views on the character of yield dynamics formed. V. G. Mikhailovsky and M. I. Semenov talked about a growth in yield combined with cyclical and random fluctuations. F. Cherevanin wrote that the yield in European Russia changed exclusively cyclically. V. M. Obukhov and A. L. Weinstein argued that grain yields grew, obscured by random fluctuations, in the absence of a cyclical component. It was the third point of view that prevailed with B. S. Yastremsky, A. S. Nifontov, A. V. Ostrovsky, V. G. Rastyannikov, and I. V. Deryugina following it. Only N. O. Voskresenskaya questioned the widespread increase in productivity. However, the previously used research methods (interval enlargement, correlation-regression analysis) are imperfect, and therefore the findings require rechecking using methods that are not in demand by national science for the analysis of crop statistics (hypothesis of the averages, Foster — Stewart method), which will help to better understand the nature grain yield dynamics in European Russia in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.","PeriodicalId":42281,"journal":{"name":"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki","volume":"843 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamics of Grain Yields in European Russia in the 19th — Early 20th Centuries: The Extent of Knowledge of the Issue\",\"authors\":\"R. V. Sinitsyn\",\"doi\":\"10.15826/izv2.2023.25.1.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article deals with the problems of research in national science of the dynamics of grain yields in European Russia between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For the purpose of the article, the author refers to crop statistics. Disputes about their reliability have been going on for about two hundred years, however, no irrefutable evidence of their unreliability has been presented. This is also true about the discussion of the early twenty-first century, where the source was criticised by B. N. Mironov and M. A. Davydov, and their opponents were S. A. Nefedov, A. V. Ostrovsky, and I. A. Kuznetsov. Interest in the dynamics of productivity emerged in the late nineteenth century. The focus of attention was the question of whether there was an increase in productivity in the period under review or not. At the turn of the twentieth century, A. F. Fortunatov and R. I. Preger maintained that productivity had increased, and I. Kh. Ozerov argued that it had not. In the 1920s, three views on the character of yield dynamics formed. V. G. Mikhailovsky and M. I. Semenov talked about a growth in yield combined with cyclical and random fluctuations. F. Cherevanin wrote that the yield in European Russia changed exclusively cyclically. V. M. Obukhov and A. L. Weinstein argued that grain yields grew, obscured by random fluctuations, in the absence of a cyclical component. It was the third point of view that prevailed with B. S. Yastremsky, A. S. Nifontov, A. V. Ostrovsky, V. G. Rastyannikov, and I. V. Deryugina following it. Only N. O. Voskresenskaya questioned the widespread increase in productivity. However, the previously used research methods (interval enlargement, correlation-regression analysis) are imperfect, and therefore the findings require rechecking using methods that are not in demand by national science for the analysis of crop statistics (hypothesis of the averages, Foster — Stewart method), which will help to better understand the nature grain yield dynamics in European Russia in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki\",\"volume\":\"843 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2023.25.1.016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2023.25.1.016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文论述了19世纪至20世纪初俄罗斯欧洲地区粮食产量动态的国家科学研究问题。为了这篇文章的目的,作者引用了农作物统计数据。关于它们的可靠性的争论已经持续了大约两百年,然而,没有无可辩驳的证据证明它们的不可靠性。21世纪初的讨论也是如此,当时的资料来源受到b·n·米罗诺夫和m·a·达维多夫的批评,而他们的对手是s·a·涅费多夫、a·v·奥斯特洛夫斯基和i·a·库兹涅佐夫。对生产力动态的兴趣出现在19世纪后期。注意的焦点是在本报告所述期间生产力是否有所提高的问题。在二十世纪之交,A. F.福尔图纳托夫和R. I.普雷格坚持认为生产力已经提高。奥泽罗夫辩称,事实并非如此。20世纪20年代,形成了三种关于屈服动力学特征的观点。V. G. Mikhailovsky和M. I. Semenov谈到了与周期性和随机波动相结合的产量增长。F. Cherevanin写道,俄罗斯欧洲区的收益率完全是周期性变化的。v·m·奥布霍夫(V. M. Obukhov)和a·l·韦恩斯坦(a . L. Weinstein)认为,在缺乏周期性因素的情况下,粮食产量的增长被随机波动所掩盖。盛行的是第三种观点,其后是b.s.雅斯特列姆斯基、a.s.尼丰托夫、a.v.奥斯特洛夫斯基、v.g.拉斯季尼科夫和i.v.德尤吉纳。只有n·o·沃斯克列先斯卡娅对生产率的普遍提高提出了质疑。然而,以前使用的研究方法(区间扩大,相关回归分析)是不完善的,因此研究结果需要使用国家科学对作物统计分析不需要的方法(平均假设,福斯特-斯图尔特方法)进行重新检查,这将有助于更好地了解19世纪和20世纪初欧洲俄罗斯的自然粮食产量动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dynamics of Grain Yields in European Russia in the 19th — Early 20th Centuries: The Extent of Knowledge of the Issue
This article deals with the problems of research in national science of the dynamics of grain yields in European Russia between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For the purpose of the article, the author refers to crop statistics. Disputes about their reliability have been going on for about two hundred years, however, no irrefutable evidence of their unreliability has been presented. This is also true about the discussion of the early twenty-first century, where the source was criticised by B. N. Mironov and M. A. Davydov, and their opponents were S. A. Nefedov, A. V. Ostrovsky, and I. A. Kuznetsov. Interest in the dynamics of productivity emerged in the late nineteenth century. The focus of attention was the question of whether there was an increase in productivity in the period under review or not. At the turn of the twentieth century, A. F. Fortunatov and R. I. Preger maintained that productivity had increased, and I. Kh. Ozerov argued that it had not. In the 1920s, three views on the character of yield dynamics formed. V. G. Mikhailovsky and M. I. Semenov talked about a growth in yield combined with cyclical and random fluctuations. F. Cherevanin wrote that the yield in European Russia changed exclusively cyclically. V. M. Obukhov and A. L. Weinstein argued that grain yields grew, obscured by random fluctuations, in the absence of a cyclical component. It was the third point of view that prevailed with B. S. Yastremsky, A. S. Nifontov, A. V. Ostrovsky, V. G. Rastyannikov, and I. V. Deryugina following it. Only N. O. Voskresenskaya questioned the widespread increase in productivity. However, the previously used research methods (interval enlargement, correlation-regression analysis) are imperfect, and therefore the findings require rechecking using methods that are not in demand by national science for the analysis of crop statistics (hypothesis of the averages, Foster — Stewart method), which will help to better understand the nature grain yield dynamics in European Russia in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信