MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043462371 · doi:10.28925/2524-0757.2020.1.16

TO THE HISTORY OF THE UKRAINIAN NOBILITY OF THE FIRST QUARTER OF 19 CENTURY: KATERYNA YU. GALAGAN’S LETTER TO HER GRANDCHILDREN PETRO AND PAVLO (1812)

2020· article· en· W3043462371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryna Budzar

Bibliographic record

VenueKyiv Historical Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicDiverse Scientific Research in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNobilityUkrainianCasualBiographyEveryday lifeHistoryNephew and nieceQuarter (Canadian coin)GenealogyLiteratureSociologyClassicsArtLawPolitical scienceArt historyPhilosophyLinguisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The publication of the epistolary of the Ukrainian noble families helps to understand correlation between mental stereotypes and individual strategies in the activities of this state. The Galagan family archive allows to analyse both epistolary complexes and individual letters. The aim of the article is to publish Kateryna Yu. Galagan’s letter, before marriage — Daragan, niece of Oleksii Hryhorovych and Kyryl Hryhorovych Rozumovskyi, to grandchildren Petro and Pavlo, descendants, by paternal line, of Pryluky colonel Hnat I. Galagan. The content of the letter illustrates the situation of the family’s everyday life, when K. Yu. Galagan blamed her grandchildren for, in her opinion, inappropriate behaviour during their stay in St. Petersburg. Such a private, casual situation helps to examine collective through the individual one. The letter illustrates the patterns of life of the noble community in the early 19th century. It highlights the conflict between two generations of Ukrainian nobility. The older generation still retained a more moderate tradition of Cossack officers, and the younger inherited from the imperial nobility a habit of aristocratic luxury. This conflict is revealed in the letter through the worldview of Kateryna Yu. Galagan, a person of strict temperament. Due to this, the history of family life is psychologically motivated. The oral language of the author of the text is reproduced in writing by another person (scribe). This enables historical and linguistic researches. High informative letter makes it a valuable resource in the field of the history of everyday life, historical anthropology, historical biography.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKyiv Historical StudiesSame topicDiverse Scientific Research in UkraineFrench-language works237,207