Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Last quarter of XVII century is an important stage in transit from chronicle writing to historical research, just then the foundation of historical science was laid and it made great advancement in its development already in XVIII century. Tatishchev played his role in establishment of Enlightenment historiography foundation in Russia. Historians often wonder who Tatishchev was the first professional historian or the last chronicler, an industrious amateur and maybe even a mystifier? Tatishchev's magnum opus Russian had not been completed till the end when it became the object of conflicting opinions and accounts. The end of XVIII century was marked by the dispute of two historians M.M. Shcherbatov and I.N. Boltin. They became pioneers of two trends (skeptics and advocates of Tatishchev's work) that determined the content of dispute on the value of History for the years to come. A.-L. Schlozer believed that although Tatishchev did not have proper education he is a father of history, and his work is a useful one. N.M. Karamzin continued to develop the ideas of skeptics. The value of History in scientific world fell down remarkably under the influence of Karamzin's works authority. S.M. Solovyov legitimatized the value of History as a unique source of history study. In 2005 a book by A.P. Tolochko appeared, his judgmental conclusions generated new discussions and disputes around Tatishchev. Tolochko believed that Tatishchev was a prominent of his time who fooled credulous readers. Criticizing Tatishchev his opponents not always understood the level of historical science development in Russia of the first half of XVIII century, the peculiarities of work with resources. Tatishchev did not have access to central archives, the he had were found mainly in private archives, from friends and acquaintances. Now with the development of historical science it becomes clear that sometimes the first historian was wrong in attribution of resources that he had. One can criticize Tatishchev for misinterpretation of terms, words or events understanding at the same time that he did not have even supporting aids and dictionaries that could provide incredible assistance in his work. But Tatishchev was not a mystifier because such notions as authorship, resource were not established in the historical science of XVIII century. Tatishchev is a historian-researcher in a sense of his time who critically selected and systematized a plethora of various written sources. Wherever Tatishchev went he searched for and gathered his unique manuscripts and letters for his 5 volume History. This work by a pioneer of history should be considered as a result of political and public views of its author from the one hand, and as the embodiment of perceptions about methods and historical investigation objectives inherent to a historian of Petrine epoch on the other hand.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».