THE HISTORICAL CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY IN THE URALS IN THE XVIII CENTURY
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
This article is devoted to defining the historical conditions for the development of the mining industry in the Urals in the 18 century. The author dwells on the problem with land of mountain plants. The formation of the mining industry in the Urals had many challenges. One of the essential task was to ensure the mining plants to the ground. Describing the problem, the author assesses the actions of the local population and the Imperial government. Construction of mining factories, fortresses and colonization of this territory migrant population was accompanied by the seizure of Bashkir large part of their lands and increase of various duties. Therefore, Bashkirs strongly opposed the intensification of the policy of the government in the province. The article discusses the issue of ensuring the plants artisans and working people. The government assisted entrepreneurs in providing them with qualified personnel, craftsmen. On the construction and start up in action factories of the southern Urals artisans were sent to people from the old factories of the Middle Urals for a permanent job or temporary - to train local craftsmen. The main supplier of qualified personnel for the South Ural factories were Ekaterinburg state-owned factories. The author concludes that since the first quarter of the 18 century the mining segment of the Ural industry is becoming a leading and strategically important for the whole Russian Empire, modernization processes in metallurgy and related industries acquire primary importance in the economic modernization of the Urals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it