MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170040239 · doi:10.1353/imp.2006.0086

L’état c’est nous? Местное гражданство, имперское подданство и ревизия государственных учреждений в Казанской губернии (1819–1820 гг.)

2006· article· en· W2170040239 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAb imperio · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationBureaucracyEconomic JusticeState (computer science)Political sciencePrincipal (computer security)LawPublic administrationIntervention (counseling)Power (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)PopulationPoliticsTribunalEmperorHistorySociologyComputer securityPsychologyAncient historyDemographyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Alsu Biktasheva turns to the greatly understudied topic of Senate inspections in Imperial Russia. Even though the exact statistics of inspections is unknown, the information related to the eighteenth century is particularly fragmentary. Between 1800 and 1915, some 120–125 inspections took place. Biktasheva distinguishes several stages in the history of Senate inspections, differentiated by the quantity of inspections and their function. Before Paul I introduced special legislation regulating the procedure and frequency of Senate inspections, it was an ad hoc instrument of administrative intervention into local affairs and collecting information. It was Alexander I who made Senate inspections a principal tool of his regime: fifty-two of those 120–125 known inspections took place during his twenty-five years in power (the next quarter of the century under Nicholas I witnessed only thrity-eight inspections, and just thirty to thirty-five inspections were staged over the next seventy-five years). Under Nicholas and his successors, Senate inspectors were sent out to investigate the causes of a various dramatic events: social disorder, a draught, a famine. Alexander I attempted to use inspections as a mechanism for establishing a rapport with society, a tribunal settling complaints of the population against the local administration, and as a mechanism for gathering “objective” on-site information from situations. In the absence of a modern state apparatus, rationalized legislation, and trained bureaucracy, inspections were seen by the Emperor as the most efficient way to impose justice and protect state interests. In his personification of politics, Alexander trusted people rather than institutes, and explained the corruption and inefficiency of administration by the personality of certain officials. Moreover, by authorizing inspecting Senators to use local gentry as investigators, Alexander de facto enfranchised them as citizens who had more authority than any government administrator.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · 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