Początki dwujęzycznej leksykografii rosyjsko-polskiej i polsko-rosyjskiej. Zarys stanu badań
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Тhe beginnings of a bilingual Russian-Polish and Polish-Russian lexicography: A literature reviewThe article presents an attempt to consolidate data of Russian-Polish and Polish-Russian lexicography of the period from the 17th century to the first quarter of the 19th century, provided in the bibliography of Polish dictionaries compiled by P. Grzegorczyk and the works of archeographists and historians of written languages.The author supposes that the absence of earliest Polish-East Slavic and East Slavic-Polish dictionaries in the most complete bibliography of Polish dictionaries may be explained as a consequence of the ambiguous ethnic character of written languages of the East Slavic peoples compared to recent differenctiation of East Slavic languages, as well as a result of the manuscript character of those dictionaries. Начало русско-польской и польско-русской двуязычной лексикографии. Краткий обзор научой литературыВ статье предпринимается попытка свести воедино сведения о русско-польской и польско-русской лексикографии XVII–первой четверти XIX вв., представленный в библиографии польских словарей П. Гжегорчика и в работах археографов и историков литературных языков.Высказывается предположение, что отсутствие в наиболее полной библиографии польских словарей сведений о самых давних польсковосточнославянских восточнославянскопольских словарях, известных исследователям истории языка, может быть следствием нечеткости этнической характеристики литературного языка восточных славян в XVII веке по равнению с современной дифференциацией восточнославянских языков, а также рукописной формы функционировавших в XVII веке и в первой половине XVIII века польско-восточнославянских и восточнославянско-польских словарей.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".