MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836136925

Общественное призрение и благотворительность: из истории понятий

2008· article· ru· W1836136925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Соболева Надежда Александровна

Bibliographic record

VenueВестник Тамбовского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки · 2008
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Behavioral Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Social institutionMutual aidQuarter (Canadian coin)State (computer science)InstitutionPolitical scienceHistorySociologySocial scienceLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the paper the history of evolution of the notions of charity and public assistance is considered in Russia up to the end of the 19th century. The institutions of assistance and mutual aid appeared at the earliest stage of human history, were developed and transformed in conjunction with differences in social life. At the ancient Russian stage, these notions have taken the forms of «blagotvorenie » (philanthropy). At the 17th century the term «prizrenie » appeared as an attempt to mark out the range of state regulation measures in this field. At the early stages of its existence public assistance institution was closely connected with the charity one. The notion of social care appeared only in the last quarter of 18th century as a result of the establishment of the territorial administrative organizations the Departments of Social Care («Prikazy obschestvennogo prizreniya»). Until the 19th century these notions continued to be mutually complementary. And only in the 19th century the tendency of terminological opposition in the notions development became prevailing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueВестник Тамбовского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные наукиSame topicSocial and Behavioral StudiesFrench-language works237,207