Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines written, linguistic and pictorial sources about the Old Russian domra of the XVIth — XVIIth centuries, on the basis of which the author confirms, questions and puts forward new hypotheses about its existence, construction and performance character. A large number of sources — explanations in alphabet books, mentions in scribal books of professions, surnames and geographical names derived from domra testifies to the widespread use of domra in Russia during this period. Miniatures showing the domra in different shapes of the body, length of the neck, and number of strings are analyzed. Agreeing with the conclusion about the existence of the Old Russian domra in two main varieties, the author notes that the domra could be an independent type of lute instrument, which absorbed the features of both tanbure-like and lute-like instruments (in A. S. Famintsyn's classification). There is a new hypothesis that in Old Russian literature domras could be called "pregudnitsy" as a general name for stringed instruments, and domra players could be called "pregudniks". New data are introduced into scientific circulation: based on a document of 1719, discovered by the author, the chronological framework for the Old Russian domra is expanded to the first quarter of the XVIIIth century, and the fact of the simultaneous existence of domra and balalaika is established. Assumptions are made about the nature of playing and techniques of performing on domra. The version of the existence of the domra's tessitura varieties is questioned, due to insufficient documentary evidence. It is concluded that all the considered evidence was a sufficient ground for the reconstruction of domra in 1896.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".