DEVELOPMENT OF LACE MAKING IN TAMBOV PROVINCE IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX - FIRST THIRD OF THE XX CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolution of the lace craft in Tambov Province in post-reform time and the period of the New Economic Policy is considered in the article. The centres of lacemaking in Tambov Province, both during the Tsarist Russia and the New Economic Policy period, were Ishchenskaya, Krasninskaya, Troekurovskaya and Cherepanskaya volosts of Lebedyansky (and after administrative reorganization of the province - Lipetsky) district. The main problem faced by lacemakers was the destructive activity of buyers. During monopolising the market, they were forcing needlewomen to operate at a loss. In pre-revolutionary Russia artisans were supported at different levels. Two allRussian homemade exhibitions were organised at the state level. Tambov zemstvo held a number of exhibitions, established lace schools and opened a craft store. A great contribution to the development of the craft was made by local patrons of the arts. However, despite considerable support, problems of local lacemakers could not be solved.When the Bolsheviks came to power it was observed that the artisanal lace production completely disappeared during the period of war communism, and only revived during the New Economic Policy period. The activities of buyers still had a negative impact on the development of lacemaking. The course taken to cooperate with artisans, which was supposed to solve this problem, ultimately failed, without achieving the desired result. The All-Russia agricultural and trade show, organized in 1923, was not a success either, since the handicrafts industry had not yet been able to recover and there was almost nothing to show. The revival of the craft was adversely affected by the persecution of the Tambov landowners who were engaged in patronage of the arts. In the end, the Bolshevik leadership also failed to solve the problems that were hindering the handicraft industry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".