Царствование Алексея Михайловича в отечественной историографии второй четверти xix века
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The age of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich always attracted the interest of historians, who saw him as the central figure of the Moscow State of the 17th century. The paper attempts to identify the list of academic preferences of the historians who studied the reign of the second Romanovduring the period of the Nicholas I. It is important to define the main stages of the historical and archaeographic studies of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. The subject of the study are all spheres of the second Romanov's life, such as childhood, education, domesticity, internal and external policies, mode of life, and hobbies. The results of the study are presented in three areas the authentic sources of the 17th century, monographs, and periodicals of the epoch of Nicholas I. All directions vary in the amount of work, the breadth of the use of sources, the quality of publications, and different thematic emphases. In the second quarter of the 19th century, the studies of the epoch of Alexei Mikhailovich were under the influence of Peter the Great'sreform efforts. The researchers constantly compared the father and his son, forming the image of Alexei Mikhailovich as a precursor of Peter the Great. Russian historians of the second quarter of the 19th century outlined some of the keyareas for further research, included later in the fundamental works of Russian historical thought of the 19th and 20th centuries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".