RUSSIAN ARCHEOLOGY OF THE KUZNETSK TOM’ RIVER VALLEY: HISTORY OF RESEARCH, CURRENT CONDITION AND PROSPECTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current paper features the research history of the Russian period archeological sites (fortified and unfortified settlements, cemeteries) on the territory of the Kuznetsk Tom’ River valley from the second quarter of XX century to the present day. Three stages of this process, which demonstrate the trend of increasing scale of Russian archeology in Western Siberia, were distinguished. The article analyzes the qualitative aspect of the research on the Russian period archeological sites. The analysis was performed on the basis of object dependency, studied by split-level methods of field archeology (reconnaissance and excavation) and type of publication (descriptive and analytical). A mapping of the Russian time archeological sites was conducted. It highlights some irregularities in their studies in the Kuznetsk Tom’ River Valley. The article points out some directions for further field research, among which: a search for new Russian settlements of XVII–XIX centuries at the estuaries of the tributaries of the Tom’ river near old stockade towns; excavation work at previously discovered old Russian villages and cemeteries and the assessment of their current state.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".