Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".