Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the materials of the central and regional archives, the article describes the peculiarities of the formation of the Gypsy community in the Middle Urals. The migration of the Gypsy population in different historical periods, the character of their presence in the region and the features of their interaction with the authorities are traced. The source database is characterized, and poor documentation of the history of Gypsies is marked. It is noted that the period of the 19 th – early 20 th centuries was the time of the formation of the Gypsy population in the region. In the 18 th and early 19 th centuries, Gypsy camps appeared in the region only occasionally, but, starting from the second quarter of the 19 th century, their presence became permanent, their population and exploited territory grew. The basis of the Gypsy population of that period was the camps of the ethnic group of Russian gypsies. Only in the early 20 th century, did representatives of the so-called foreign gypsies appear in the region. They were mostly from Calderash or Lovari. The main feature of the formation of the ethnic minority of Russian Gypsies was migration from two regions – the European part of the country and Siberia. In adjacent Siberian provinces, Gypsy communities had been formed a bit earlier and were larger. The archival materials highlight the peculiarities of state policy in different regions aimed at the resettlement of nomadic camps and the limitation of the Gypsy mobility in the 19 th and early 20 th century. But this did not bring the expected effect and did not lead to the resettlement of nomadic camps during that period. In the second half of the 19 th – early 20 th centuries, Gypsies became an organic part of the Perm community: performances of Gypsies on Perm ships, Gypsy choirs in the governorate centre and towns, Gypsy sellers on fairs and markets became commonplace in the life of Russian provinces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".