Реформа Сената 1711-1725 гг. : к постановке проблемы
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the history of establishment of the Senate of Peter I, studied the role and the significance of the Supreme body of power in the first quarter of the XVIII century. The author relies on a large number of legislative acts that came from the pen of the Converter. Feature article is the completeness of the consideration of issues connected with the regulation of the Senate in the first quarter of the XVIII century, such as the occurrence of, the procedure of the work, the main functions of the Senate. The author notes that the members of the Senate appointed by the king. Peter I tried to increase the responsibility of the Senate. This was reflected in the fact that in the Senate for the first time in the history of the civil authorities in Russia was introduced oath of all employees. The Senate originally had a wide range of powers. Also, the Senate formed a strong technical staff. A particular problem in the work of the Senate was the question of the scope of its legal authority. However, the article noted that the king had not addressed this issue in the law and had to solve in practice, most Senate.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.029 |
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 it