MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2224803943

Власть и Население в Российской Провинции: Опыт Сотрудничества в Губернских Органах Управления и Суда (Последняя Четверть Xviii в) (Administration and Population in the Russian Province: Cooperation of Regional Administration and Legislation (Last Quarter of XVIII C))

2014· article· ru· W2224803943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vitali Alexandrovich Voropanov

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Socio-Economic Development Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)LegislationQuarter (Canadian coin)Administration of justicePolitical scienceState (computer science)PopulationEstateEmpirePublic administrationGeographyLawSociologyDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Russian Abstract: В статье рассматривается реформирование системы местных государственных учреждений в России 1775-1785 гг., подчеркивается, что оно опиралось на традиции общественного управления. Асинхронность развития областей Российской империи, неравноценность демографических ресурсов для проведения сословных выборов, социальной среды для осуществления правосудия определяли различные результаты в деятельности судебных представителей. English Abstract: The article explores the reforms in the system of local state institutions of Russia between 1775 and 1785 based on tradition of public administration. The asynchrony of the Russian Empire's regional development, the lack of demographic resources for estate-based elections, or lack of social environment for carrying out the justice served as impact for differentiated results in legal activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicRegional Socio-Economic Development TrendsFrench-language works237,207