Efforts to Change the Elections Statute of the Town Council in Lublin in the Last Quarter of the 15th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Lublin in the 15th century the town council was elected by a college composed ofa hereditary alderman and representatives of the town’s citizens and of the people wholived in the suburbs of Lublin. The same century saw a conflict between them and thehereditary aldermen who represented the Cracow patriciate and were not interested in thedevelopment of Lublin. In the third quarter of the 15th century the Lublin town councilsupported by numerous groups of burghers and King Kazimierz Jagiellonian deprivedthe (hereditary) alderman of any influence on the economic life of the town and theelection of the judicial alderman and town council’s judicial clerks. In 1487 there wasa conflict between the King and the town council of Cracow; and there was an attempt totake advantage of that conflict and to deprive the hereditary alderman of his participationin the election of town councillors. However, that attempt failed, which was the resultof the decision of the Royal Commission and the King himself. The electoral collegewas expanded by two members: the starost (also: starosta, an old leader in Slavic countries)and the voivod (also: voivode/vaivode, a military commander/governor of a town/province in various Slavic countries). It was not a success of the Lublin elite of power,whatsoever.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".