General-criminal prisons of the Russian Empire in the XIX century (on the example of the Orenburg province)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper attempts to provide, on the basis of archival and published materials, a brief description of the state of general prisons in the Russian Empire in the 19th century on the example of the Orenburg province. In the first half of the XIX century, many prison buildings were in a dilapidated state, most of them were wooden. The prisoners suffered from overcrowding, they were not separated by sex and age, the sick were kept together with the healthy ones, they were hungry, they lived in begging. Very often the premises for prisons were private rental houses. There were no medical personnel in prisons, there were epidemics that led to a huge increase in mortality. As for the work, in the first half of the XIX century in prison locks and guards it was introduced in the rarest cases, since there were no special rooms for this. In the post-reform period, many prison premises were repaired, premises began to be rented for hospitals, the prisoners diet improved in the 1980s. The payment for arrest labor was introduced, the educational activity in prisons improved. Despite the measures taken by the government, the state of ordinary prisons in the southern Urals throughout the XIX century was still deplorable due to the fact that there was not enough money, or the local administration was not interested in improving the situation of the prisoners and the state of the prisons themselves.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it