Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. In Byzantine historical and hagiographic texts of the 9th–10th centuries reporting on events that took place in Crimea, the Klimata were repeatedly mentioned (τ κλίματα is a plural number of τὸ κλίμα – klimata). Κλίμα in Greek means a district in a city or part of a province. Methods. For justifying the boundaries of the Klimata, it is necessary to analyze all references to the toponym in written sources and materials of archaeological excavations in the South-Western Crimea. Analysis. During the entire period of its existence, the Klimata (archontitai) did not have autonomy. In the 7th century Cherson and Klimata were a Byzantine border province. Since the early 8th century until 841 Mountain Crimea belonged to the Khazars. Kagan united the Klimata (archontitai) of Cherson to the province of Gothia with its capital in Doros. Kagan retained the previous administration and appointed archon Klima Doras as the ruler of Gothia (Klimata). Kagan subordinated to him the archons of other fortresses and entrusted to him the collection of tribute. From 841 to the third quarter of the 11th c., the Klimata of Gothia were included into the theme of Cherson. Seals of the Turmarch of Gothia of the end of the 10th – the early 11th centuries prove the creation the Turma of Gothia within the theme of Cherson, which was ruled by a Byzantine officer-turmarch. In 1204, the province submitted to Trebizond. Results. In written sources, the toponym Klimata called only the region neighboring Cherson with the fortresses of the neighbouring peoples of the city “castris gentium ibidem adjacentium” (the Goths and the Alans). In the 7th century the Klimata of Cherson were localized on the territory of the country of Dori. In the 8th – the first half (?) of the 13th centuries Gothia or the Klimata of Gothia were put there.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".