Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a rethinking of the role of historical figures of the Kazakh steppe, and their placein social and political life. In this regard, the works of Soviet and pre-revolutionary authors, includingA. I. Levshin, L. Meyer, I. I. Kraft, P. Yudin, S. N. Sevastyanov and others, has focused particularly. Inour case, the activity of the political leaders is considered from a new point of view, taking into accounttheir place in the national history. The differentiation of the socio-political activities of the leaders ofthe Kazakh steppe depends primarily on the interpretation of researchers. Therefore, it is of paramountimportance for us to first reconstruct the events, influenced the assessment of personalities and theiractivities in society.In the last quarter of the XVII – the first quarter of the XIX century, among the authoritative figuresof the Western region of Kazakhstan, Karatai Sultan, Aishuak Khan, Aryngazy Khan, Shergazy Khan, etcoccupy a special place. Their activities in the struggle for political stability have attracted the attentionof Russian researchers and neighboring countries. It should be noted that the period of the XVIII-XIXcenturies for the Kazakh people can be interpreted as one of the most difficult periods. Because for manyyears, the entry of Kazakhstan into Russia was extolled by the artificial theory of «voluntary accession»and the socio-political, socio-economic problems of the Kazakh people were clearly studied. Under hisinfluence, the author examines and analyzes the history of the national liberation struggle, which wasnever interrupted, during the colonization, the historical image of the Kazakh citizens ruling the country,the relations of our people with neighboring countries exclusively in the interests of the «older» people.Key words: history, historiography, pre-revolutionary benefactors, power, khan, sultan, Junior Zhuz,Sultan Karatai, Aishuak Khan, Shergazy Khan, Russia, Kazakhstan.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".