MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W313577592

Kasimovskoe Khanstvo (1445-1552 Gg.). Ocherki Istorii

2013· article· en· W313577592 on OpenAlex
Christoph Witzenrath

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Slavonic Papers · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural, Linguistic, Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTatarSubject (documents)GloryHistoryLawAncient historyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bulat Rakhimzianov. Kasimovskoe khanstvo (1445-1552gg.). Ocherki istorii. Kazan': Tatar, kn. izd-vo, 2009. 207 pp. Illustrations. Bibliography. Cloth.This study is timely-a first on its subject, after almost one and a half centuries since Vladimir Vel'iaminov-Zernov's monumental examination of Kasimov khanate. Bulat Rakhimzianov uses whole categories of Russian sources that were not accessible to his predecessor, in particular materials on economic and social life as well as diplomatic sources little studied before with regard to Kasimov. He builds on general investigations of Tatars within Russia and discusses studies in Western languages.Despite subject's lengthy dormant state, Kasimov khanate is a very rewarding object of scrutiny, for it provides an important case study of pre-history of Muscovite multi-ethnic empire. Rakhimzianov offers a new interpretation of these early stages. Earlier investigators highlighted functionality of Kasimov khanate, which allowed Moscow to influence internal politics of khanates in Kazan', Astrakhan', and Sibir' and finally to absorb them, citing tranquil life and unimpeded religious practice of Tatars within Russia, particularly in Kasimov, to counter claims by Muslim co-religionists. Vel'iaminov-Zernov and his many followers took it for granted that Moscow founded such an asset all by itself, to attract Tatar emigres and shield settled area around Moscow. However, Rakhimzianov's investigation of Kasimov's origins demonstrates that there could be no voluntary action on part of Moscow, as Vasilii II the Blind was prisoner of Ulug-Mukhammed, father of first sultan, Kasim. Vasilii was subsequently released, for a huge ransom which raised stakes in following internal Muscovite war. In 1920s, M. G. Khudiakov connected this ransom to foundation of Kasimov, but his grasp of sources was superficial, assuming that khan of Kazan' and Vasilii II signed a treaty. This notion lacks any foundation and contradicts Vasilii's oath of allegiance to former Khan of Golden or Great Horde, Ulug Mukhammed, who by time of battle of Suzdal' and peace of 1445 had been toppled and exiled, but regrouped in Kazan' in order to regain his former throne. Therefore, there could be no formal written treaty since it would have required two independent sides. It is Rakhimzianov's conviction that beyond well-documented ransom in money, an oral agreement between khan and his prisoner was basis for foundation of Kasimov. This claim is based on circumstantial evidence strength of which determines its status.Rakhimzianov's findings embed story of foundation of Kasimov much more concisely than earlier interpretations did. …

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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