Islam in Life of the Polish-Lithuanian Tatars (The XIV-XIX Centuries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgency of the problem under investigation is caused by its being poorly studied in the national historiography. It is devoted to one of the main features distinguishing the Polish-Lithuanian Tatars from others – religion which they kept from the moment of emergence in the Grand Duchy Lithuania, further the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was the sphere which is most attracting attention. Particular attention is paid to the peculiarities and specific character of the religious life of the Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, the disclosure of the activities of religious gmina – dzhemat that emerged in the XIV-XV centuries, mosques, construction of which began almost since “osadnichestvo” of Tatars, the place and role of the mullahs as authoritative, educated people and who had a great impact on the daily lives of their parishioners, the description of existing peculiar rituals associated primarily with the three most important moments of life: birth, marriage and death, Tatar cemeteries usually located at the mosques or at high hillocks, waqfs, and so on. This article is based on the basic principles of historical knowledge: the historicism and objectivity, allowing to provide scientific approach to the analysis of the historical processes happening in life of the Polish-Lithuanian Tatars. Materials of the article can be of interest to students, masters, graduate students, teachers specializing on Islam history, for those who are engaged in its studying in Eastern Europe.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".