MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771637424

The Princes of Novgorod from 970 to 1136

2016· article· en· W2771637424 on OpenAlex
Martin Dimnik

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRossica Antiqua · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Archaeological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)PoliticsAncient historyHistoryLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the first half of the thirteenth century when the Tatars invaded Rus‘, Novgorod, like Kiev, was not the patrimony of any dynasty of princes. The town‘s citizens had fought resolutely for its political independence, and defended that status jealously after they had secured it. In this way Novgorod was different from another major principalities, that were patrimonial domains of different princely dynasties. This article deals with earlу political history of relations of Novgorod and its princes. Author argues that the Novgorodians invited the Varangian prince Riurik to rule them with the intention of making the town his permanent principality. And from the middle of the tenth to the first half of the twelfth century, the office of the prince of Novgorod was not analogous to that of a posadnik. A prince was not a temporary appointee to Novgorod like a posadnik, but ruled the town as his patrimonial domain. Most often he was the eldest son of a princely family. Ultimately, it was the princes‘ unwillingness to rule Novgorod as their patrimonial domain that forced the Novgorodians to stop searching for a hereditary dynasty for their town.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it