Bibliographic record
Abstract
At all times Yakutia was particularly concerned with the issues of territorial structure and management due to the enormity of its territory, ample natural resources and its geographical and geopolitical location. Taking into account the changes in the territorial organization of the region in the XVIIth century allows us to trace the growth dynamics of its settlement network, the relationships between individual settlements and their totality, as well as to identify the differences between the existing settlement network and the problems related to the future development of the region. The article discusses the changes in the territorial and organizational structure of the region and its internal parts within the context of general changes in the administrative division of the Russian state as a whole, and Siberia, in particular. Literary publications, historical documents containing the information about the basic changes in boundaries and structure, cartographic and descriptive materials served as the sources for studying this issue. The use of the above mentioned sources allows us to determine that the territorial and organizational structure of the region at an early stage (before the service class people came there) was a location of tribal groupings and corresponded to places of locations of clans and tribes. Only with the introduction of the yasak tax the territory of inhabitance was divided into volosts (small rural districts). At first, that division was only a fixation of social structure of the Yakuts pursuant to the words of Yakut kniaztsy (elders of Siberian clans). First groups of service class people had neither time nor favorable conditions for exercising any administrative division. Initially, they were dealing with kniaztsy who occupied certain regions called volosts or uluses. Those were the first administrative units of territory management of the region in the XVIIth century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".