The socio-economic situation of the landowner peasants after the peasant reform in Georgia (the last quarter of the 19th - the early 20th century)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyses the main provisions of the peasant reform in Georgia, which had a further impact on the socio-economic development of the landowner peasants of Tiflis and Kutaisi provinces in the last quarter of the 19th – the early 20th centuries. On the basis of archival sources and literature, the author considers the reasons for the difficult economic situation of the Georgian landowners in the period under study. An analysis makes it possible to conclude that the socio-economic relations that had been formed in Georgia determined the contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of management. On the one hand, the peasant reform contributed to the more rapid development of the capitalist mode of production in the countryside, laying the foundation for economic development in agriculture, the introduction of commercial agriculture, the growth of agricultural productivity, and the maturation of commodity-capitalist relations. On the other hand, the main means of production were in the hands of the landlords, which led to an even greater extensive impoverishment of the landlord peasants. Thus, in Georgia, the remnants of serfdom survived even longer than in the European provinces of the Russian Empire. It is concluded that the reason for these remnants included the backwardness and relatively weak development of capitalist relations in the South Caucasus, in particular, in Georgia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".