Bibliographic record
Abstract
David Moon. The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia, 1762-1907. London: Pearson Education, 2001. xix, 203 pp. Illustrations. Glossary. Bibliography. Index. Cloth.The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia by David Moon is the latest addition to the Seminar Studies in History series. The book aims to stimulate readers into deepening their knowledge and understanding of the abolition of serfdom in Russia.The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia is organized into four parts: background, analysis, conclusions and assessment, and documents. Piirt One provides introductory remarks on the relationship between the imperial Russian state and its nobles and peasants. Part Two discusses various aspects of serfdom in the Russian Empire and the process of the abolition of serfdom. Part Three examines the significance and aftermath of the abolition of serfdom in the Russian countryside. Part Four comprises of excerpts of historical documents, ranging from Peter Ill's proclamation on the abolition of compulsory noble state service in 1762 to Nicholas II's proclamation on the abolition of outstanding redemption payments in 1907.Moon writes that the origins of serfdom in Russia in the seventeenth century were largely for military purposes. By the eighteenth century, serfdom in Russia determined the serfs legal status, rights of access to land granted to serfs by noble estate owners, serf obligations, and estate owners' administrative and judicial authority over their serfs (p. 18). In the first half of the nineteenth century, the main arguments advanced for the reform of serfdom in Russia were economic and social stability. Government officials believed that serfdom hindered the country's development. Nicholas I in 1 848 urged Russian nobles to act together against the threat of revolt from below. Other justifications for abolishing serfdom were humanitarian considerations and the expansion of the Russian state.The origins of the abolition of serfdom lay in Peter Ill's measures in 1762 to end compulsory noble state service and to secularize church peasants. The measures did not end serfdom. That would occur ninety-nine years later. In the intervening years, minor reforms were introduced to curtail the worst abuses, but these were largely half-hearted and inconsequential. Ironically, Nicholas I, who was reluctant to end serfdom, was deeply preoccupied with the peasant question. His secret committees and reforms of appanage and state peasants prepared Russia for the eventual abolition of serfdom (p. 48).The defeat of Russia in 1856 by France and Great Britain in the Crimean War exposed not only the weakness of the Russian armed forces, but also the inability of the country to raise a well-armed professional army along the lines of the French and British armies. If Russia was to remain a viable European power, the only way out for the government of Alexander II was to abolish serfdom as a means to modernize the Russian armed forces.The Statutes of 19 February 1861 did not abolish serfdom in one fell swoop, but rather set out a graduated process of three stages-a two-year transition period, an indeterminate period of temporary obligation, and a forty-nine-year redemption period (p. …
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".