Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines military transformations in Russia between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries within the framework of the Military Revolution concept. This concept, introduced by the British historian Michael Roberts in 1955, was originally used to link changes in the purely military sphere (the introduction of gunpowder and the increased number of troops) with changes in state structures in western European countries. However, the concept can also be used to describe modernisation processes in non-European countries. Some historians have pointed out that military reforms often led to a holistic transformation of the socio-economic system. Others, including those dealing with the Military Revolution in Russia, focus primarily on the role of economic, social, and educational backwardness, which resulted in the construction of a modern military system and state different from that found in the West. This article attempts to complement this historical perspective by highlighting the importance of the cultural context in Russia’s military modernisation. It explores the traditional cultural narrative – rooted in Orthodoxy and a patrimonial socio-political system – which resulted in the emergence of specific beliefs about waging war and achieving victory, as well as practices which differed from those in the West. As a result, it is argued that the introduction of similar technological and organisational solutions in the state of the tsars was accompanied not only by different political and socioeconomic conditions, but also by different values, which were reflected in the various ways of reforming the troops and their subsequent use on the battlefield.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".