The periodization of the relations between Dzungaria and Tibet in the first half of the 18<sup>th</sup> century.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examine the relationship between Dzungaria and Tibet in the first half of the 18thcentury. A whole series of events that happened in these countries coincide chronologically in a rather surprising way. The authors highlight the important events of this period: the seizure of Lhasa by the Dzungars in 1717–1720, the uprising of the Kukunor Khoshuts in 1723–1724, the development of Dzungar-Tibetan relations in the second quarter of the 18thcentury. They stress the Galdan-Tsereng’s embassy to the Dalai-lama in 1742/1743, the event, which was mentioned even in the Russian archival documents. Besides, they pay special attention to the activities of the main leaders, such as Dzungarian hungtaiji: Tsewang-Rabdan, Galdan-Tsereng; Tibetan rulers: rgyal-po Lhawzang, miwang Pholanay, the Dalai-lamas Sixth and Seventh; the Qing emperors: Kangxi, Yongzheng, Qianlong. They quote the letters exchanged between the Qing emperors, on the one hand, and the Dzungar (and Khoshut) leaders, on the other. The authors concluded that the relations between Dzungaria and Tibet during the first half of the 18thcentury could be subdivided into three stages (1703–1717; 1717–1727; 1727–1745/1750, each with its peaks). These relations, as well as their development, largely depended on the state of the relations between the dynasty of Qing and Tibet, especially the imperial policy towards Dzungaria.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".