The Past of the Crimea as Perceived by British Missionary Ebenezer Henderson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the notion of the past of the Crimea in the public mind of the first quarter of the nineteenth century according to a book by famous British Biblicist and traveller Ebenezer Henderson (1784–1858). Henderson worked for the Russian Bible Society which distributed the Holy Scriptures among the peoples of the Empire. Emperor Alexander I patronised the work of the Society probably in order to use their results to facilitate the integration of non-Orthodox populations into his Empire. In 1820, Henderson and his fellows took an inspection trip through Russian provinces. It resulted in the publication of a travelogue which became an interesting account of Russia under Alexander I. Henderson’s journal is important for the understanding of the mind in the period when, using already published studies on the history of the Crimea, travellers reconsidered them in their travelogues by comparing in-situ observations with book records. Henderson’s book is a specific experience of interpretation of history by a person who had all-round knowledge in philology and therefore could, unlike the majority of his contemporaries, read Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Oriental sources in the original. Henderson, as a religious figure, experienced an influence of his Christian feelings and quests. The result was his book, composed as a mosaic of scientific and religious, sentimental and pious, realistic and delusive fragments. The author’s historical associations were triggered by both archaeological sites and simple geographical locations relatable with monuments of the past that were lost for good.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".