Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".