MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE BOOK OF SOCHNY WRITING AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE

2021· article· ru· W3201218113 on OpenAlex
Алексей Геннадьевич Гуменюк

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueВестник Тверского государственного университета Серия История · 2021
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Regulatory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReignArtifact (error)Quarter (Canadian coin)Object (grammar)HistoryLiteratureClassicsArtComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyLawArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Книга сошного письма является важным источником при изучении писцового делопроизводства. Сохранившиеся редакции памятника до настоящего времени не стали объектом систематического исследования. При подготовке данной работы, были исследованы 22 списка книги сошного письма. Изученные рукописи позволяют выделить две полных редакции памятника. Текст книги сошного письма в первой редакции выявлен в 4-х списках, относящихся к середине XVII в. Вторая редакция книги сошного письма сохранилась в 6 списках первой половины XVIII в. 12 списков являются сокращенными редакциями документа, отличающимися друг от друга. Анализ комплекса списков книги сошного письма показывает, что первая редакции текста содержит элементы протографа, составленного в 1588-1610 гг. К правлению царя Михаила Фёдоровича следует отнести дополнения в тексте, касающиеся разверстки живущей четверти. Текст первой редакции сохранял много разделов, устаревших к середине XVII в. После налоговой реформы 1679 г. текст был переработан, вторая редакция книги сошного письма являлась официальным руководством по землемерию до середины XVIII в. The book of soshny writing is an important source in the study of scribal clerical work. The surviving versions of the text have not been become the object of systematic research yet. During the preparation of this work 22 copies of the book of soshny writing were examined. The studied manuscripts are allowed to distinguish two complete versions of the written artifact. The first edition of the book of the soshny writing is revealed in 4 copies belonging to the middle of the XVII century. The second edition of the book of soshny writing is preserved in 6 copies of the first half of the XVIII century. 12 copies are shorten versions of the document. The analysis of copies of the book of soshny writing shows that the first version of the text contains elements of the protograph compiled in 1588-1610. To the reign of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, it is necessary to include additions in the text concerning assessment of the living quarter. The text was revised after the tax reform of 1679. The second edition of the book of soshny writing was the official guide for land surveying until the middle of the XVIII century.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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