Handwritten Miscellanies About Peter the Great: Codicological Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The readings on the history of Peter's time seem to be quite stable.These included works written in Petrine time, some of which were published in the first quarter of the 18th century, the chronological tables of Peter the Great's reign, often with a poetic preface, as well as biographical works by P.N.Krekshin and A. Katiforo, created in Elizabethan time and distributed as copies.The first biographical works about the tsar-reformer were often supplemented by handwritten copies of printed decrees, communiques, letters and other documents.In addition, handwritten miscellanies, consisting exclusively of letters and decrees of Peter the Great, were distributed.In the late 18th -early 19th century handwritten miscellanies about Peter the Great became a subject of interest among collectors and academics.Therefore, at present, these manuscripts can be found in various collections in archives and libraries.The collection's being part of the family fund gives the researcher an opportunity to talk more confidently about owner and the purposes of compilation.The collections lack necessary historical convoy, and it is very difficult to trace the origin of the manuscript.Codicological research provides an opportunity to clarify the origin, the sociocultural milieu and the further archival being of the miscellanies about Peter the Great.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.006 |
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".