ON THE HISTORY OF THE CREATION OF THE SIBERIAN CHRONICLE CODE (ON THE SOURCES AND STAGES OF EDITING ARTICLES ON THE RENEWAL OF RUSSIAN URBAN PLANNING IN SIBERIA UNDER MIKHAIL FEDOROVICH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of the study is the definition of the sources of the articles of the Siberian chronicle code (beginning with its early edition – the Kniga Zapisnaya, or the Registry Book) dedicated to the emergence of the Kuznetsk and Yenisei stockade settlements. The purpose of the paper is to compare chronicle news in the context of the narrative of anonymous scribes about the resumption of the Russian urban planning in Siberia beginning with the enthronement of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. The main method of analysis is the comparison of the reports with each other as well as with documentary evidence. As a result, it appears that the creators of the code, in particular, the protograph of its early editions, turned to the replies of the Tobolsk, theh Kuznetsk, and the Yenissei administrators on the construction of new Russian stockades on the banks of the Tom and the Yenissei rivers in 1618– 1619. The field of application of observations concerning the origin of the articles of interest is the history of Siberian chronicle writing and the Russian colonization of Siberia in the first quarter of the 17th century. The conclusions are substantiated by the articles of the initial editions of the Siberian chronicle that are based on documentary sources. The testimony of the first Yenissei voivode Ya. I. Khripunov, the creator of the Kniga Zapisnaya, was omitted in later versions but apparently conveys memories that date back to the mid-17th century. During the editing and copying of the code, a number of inaccuracies occurred, but most of the information given in the annals can be considered rather reliable. The further history of the articles under consideration in many respects reflects the evolution of the Siberian literary tradition in the 17th century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".