Lietuvių ir lenkų istoriografija apie lietuvių mitologiją XIX a. pirmoje pusėje
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses the short-term “project” – to write Lithuanian mythology of one of the most influential public organisations of the 19th century in Vilnius – shubravci, which was close to masons. The majority of shubravci were quite positive about the “project” – Poles, Vilnius University professors – and chose pseudonyms of Lithuanian mythology characters by making a promise to collect material about each character. This rather marginal project among such people – the writing of mythology – was discussed in the publication Street News, Wiadomości brukowe, the official approach of the union to this idea from very enthusiastic transformed into very unacceptable and even became the object of mockery. However, the impulse of shubravci was captured by a lot of Lithuanians of the first quarter of the 19th century; later this idea was developed from Simonas Daukantas to Kajetonas Neazabitauskis, from D. Poška, to whom the idea of Vilnius professors became a “lightning-conductor” to his previous works. This idea among shubravci was supported by two persons – K. Kontrimas ir J. Šimkevičius; reaction in the union itself was fast, the idea was abandoned and suppressed. We can also observe the moment when processes which led to T. Narbutas, J. I. Kraševskis, S. Daukantas till Jonas Basanavičius ideology; the processes which contributed to the birth of liberation ideology at the beginning of XX century and were reiterated in the 20th century in Romuva and Ethos ideology line, which is still alive.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.008 |
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".