Typical Features of the Moscow Russia as Early-modern State in the Context of the Comparative and Legal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article features of political regime development in the Russian state of the Moscow era (the end of the XV-XVII centuries) are considered in the general context of the European early-modern states of the XVI-XVII centuries formation and evolution. Use of new methodological approaches and deeper and at the same time original approach to the analysis of both narrative, and assembly materials allow to conclude that, despite unusual, at first sight, features of development of the Russian state during the considered period (those natural and geographical conditions caused first of all by character it developed in), Russia can be put in one row with such early-modern states as France, Spain or the Ottoman Empire. For all of them who are not possessing the developed officialdom and so developed fiscal institutes and power tools (represented by regular army, police and so forth), the aspiration to find a certain balance of interests between raison d’État (understanding as it first of all interest dynastic) and bien public (that it is first of all interest of the most active and influential part of society, "the political nation" in the political plan) as it guaranteed the power necessary legitimacy, obedience and support from society as indispensable conditions of more or less effective functioning of power institutes is inherent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".