MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158996329

Модели городского самоуправления в Восточной Сибири в конце XVIII первой четверти XIX в

2015· article· ru· W2158996329 on OpenAlex
Дамешек Лев Михайлович, Плотникова Мария Михайловна

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Filologiya · 2015
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Socio-Economic Development Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)BourgeoisieEmpireGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceCharterLocal governmentState (computer science)Economic historyPublic administrationSovereigntyGeographyHistoryLawArchaeologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are different estimates of the local government reform of Catherine II by European and Russian researchers. Russian researchers believe that The Charter on the Rights and Benefits of Cities of the Russian Empire, 21 April 1785 is a sample of the good intentions of the sovereign. European researchers believe that Catherine took a step forward with respect to the modern state formation. She separated justice and management and gave the cities broad self-government. The beginning of Catherine's administration and city reforms coincided with the time of the administrative-territorial development of Siberia, especially in its Eastern part. A model for the urban development in Eastern Siberia was the accumulated experience in the management of cities in the European part of the Russian Empire. The provincial city was to elect the city chief, the magistrates and the city mayor. The county town was to elect the city chief and the magistrates. The article classified Irkutsk, Kirensk, Verkhneudinsk, Nizhneudinsk and Krasnoyarsk as the cities of Eastern Siberia on the basis of the historical experience of the city development. The system of local government was formed in Eastern Siberia in the last quarter of the 18th century. This process coincided with the formation and development of new county centers in Irkutsk Province: Kirensk, Nizhneudinsk and Verkhneudinsk, which became cities in 1783. Municipal self-government was the City Duma in Irkutsk, the city mayor in Krasnoyarsk, the bourgeois chief in Kirensk and Nizhneudinsk, the City Hall and the City Mayor in Verkhneudinsk in the late 18th century. The City Duma was elected in Krasnoyarsk in 1804. The City Hall was opened in Kirensk in 1807. It moved from Ilimsk. Irkutsk became a populous city, Verkhneudinsk became a medium-sized town, Nizhneudinsk and Kirensk became porly populated cities, and Krasnoyarsk became a provincial center of the new Yenisei Province after the reform of M.M. Speransky. A full provincial city was Irkutsk with all elected positions according to the law. Verkhneudinsk was a full county town. Krasnoyarsk became a raunty town with a parliamentary government in 1804. There were no elected magistrates in Kirensk and Nizhneudinsk. Irkutsk City Duma took on the responsibility for urban development of other cities of Irkutsk Province, Nizhneudinsk and Balagansk. The Siberian reform of M.M. Speransky legislatively confirmed the already established local government model in the framework of the separation power theory in the Eastern Siberian cities.

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.

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, 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.012

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.201 · 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