Bulgarians and Bulgaria in the Last Quarter of the Nineteenth Century in Jan Grzegorzewski’s Publications (Internal Policy, Foreign Policy)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bulgarians and Bulgaria in the Last Quarter of the 19th Century in Jan Grzegorzewski’s Publications (Internal Policy, Foreign Policy)The period of five-century “Turkish yoke” of the Bulgarian lands brought up many deep and multifaceted changes in almost all areas of social life. The Bulgarian population, pushed aside on the margin of social life and deprived of almost all public rights, were unable to reconstruct their elites, destroyed physically and ideologically during the Turkish invasion of the Balkans. And it was for this reason that on the threshold of independence the Bulgarians had only a handful of people prepared to lead the nation and to perform a public service both on a local and national scale. The issue became especially important after Bulgaria regained its statehood in 1878, and social and economic problems of the young state were aggravated by the rivalry of the great powers fighting for influence in this part of Europe, which effectively attracted the attention of developing political milieux. This caused never-ending disputes within the Bulgarian political circles between supporters of a rapprochement with the West and advocates of closer relations with Russia, which, in turn, led not only to numerous political crises, but also implied changes in the highest levels of the government. Only the utmost determination did make it possible for the Bulgarians to overcome internal political problems and to make Bulgaria the leader of other Balkan countries already in the early 19th century. Those complex processes were observed, described and commented upon by Jan Grzegorzewski, and his texts are a perfect source of knowledge both for historians, and other scholars. Болгары и Болгария в последней четверти XIX в. в публикациях Яна Гжегожевского (внутренняя и внешняя политика)Период пятисотлетнего турецкого ига болгарских земель вызвало глубокие и многоаспектные перемены почти во всех сферах тамошней общественной жизни. Болгары, столкнутые на обочину и лишенные почти всех публичных прав, были не в состоянии предпринять действия по восстановлению своей элиты, которая была физически или идеологически уничтожена еще во время вторжения турок на Балканы. Из-за чего на пороге обретения независимости болгарский народ имел в распоряжении лишь горстку людей, подготовленных к лидерству и несении государственной службы, как в местном, так и в общегосударственном масштабе. Эта проблема приобрела особенное значение после реактивации болгарской государственности в 1878 г., когда на трудности общественного и экономического характера, скопившиеся перед молодым государством, наложилось тогдашнее соперничество держав за сферы влияний в этой части Европы, которое эффективно поглощало внимание только что создававшихся политических сред. Такое положение вещей приводило в Болгарии к бесконечным спорам между сторонниками сближения с Западом и сторонниками укрепления отношений с Россией, что обернулось не только многочисленными политическими кризисами, но и повлекло за собой изменения в высших эшелонах власти. Лишь необычная решительность в стремлении к национальным целям позволила болгарам не только одолеть внутренние политические проблемы, но и уже в начале XX в. сделать свою страну лидером среди других балканских государств. За этими сложными процессами наблюдал, описывал и комментировал Ян Гжегожевский, а его работы являются отличным источником знаний, как для историков, так и для представителей других научных дисциплин.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".