RUSSIAN CONSERVATORS AND THE PEASANT ISSUE AT THE LATE XVIII - FIRST QUARTER OF XIX CENTURIES: STATING OF THE PROBLEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to a rather complex problem, the place of the peasant issue in the mindset and specific actions of conservative thinkers, representatives of the ruling noble class of the Russian empire at the end of the XVIII - first quarter of the XIX centuries. It gives the main characteristics of the most conservative trend in historiography and outlines its features in Russia in this period. The paper also touches on some understudied questions in particular the problem of the proportion of attitudes by representatives of conservatism and the so-called «liberalism» and «noble revolutionaries» to peasant emancipation and easing-off serfdom in Russia. To solve it, we use extensive materials of the noblemen projects of this period for solving the peasant issue, published by one of the authors of the article over the past two decades and only partially used in the literature. The authors come to the conclusion about the similarity of views of a noble ideologues of different directions of these three decades, alike in the pre-reform period, in relation to solutions of the peasant issue as the most important problem of social and political life in Russia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".