Findings of Early Hand Firearms from Southern Siberia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. This article is aimed at identifying early samples of hand firearms at different Siberian territories (Buriatia, the Upper Ob region). Such facts open new perspectives for studying and reconstructing the process of development and distribution of hand firearms in Northern Asia and helps identify regional peculiarities of this historic phenomenon. Results. One of the earliest firearms found on the territory of Southern Siberia is a bronze barrel of a Chinese hand firearms discovered in the valley of the Dzhida River in Buriatia, which refers to the Ming Epoch (the Yongle period). Judging by a serial number of the gun (50138), it was manufactured at the early period of mass production of hand firearms in China, i. e. in the first quarter of the 15th century. Currently, it is one of the earliest foreign samples of oriental firearms known in Siberia. In the Upper Ob region (in the surroundings of the Biysk Fortress (Ostrog), there was another tube of an early hand firearms found. It is of Russian origin and dates the second half of the 16th – beginning of the 17th century. These samples of Siberian firearms are archaic, which demonstrates a trend of using archaic weapons up to the beginning of the 18th century in the absence or lack of modern firearms. It is quite vividly demonstrated by the materials of the artillery treasure of the Umrevinsky Ostrog (1703). Conclusion. The buffer location of Southern Siberia between the growing territories of the Tsardom of Muscovy and Ming China starting from the 1500s A.D. determined the presence of foreign hand firearms of different origin. As evidenced by written sources, they were numerous on the territories where armed conflicts took place and defensive fortifications (Ostrogs) were subsequently constructed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".