Dialogues about the Rights of Nobility Assembly in the Context of the Electoral Conflicts in Russia of the First Quarter of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of a research how, in the first quarter of the 19th century, nobility assemblies expressed their disagreement with the governor’s decision not to confirm the results of vote or to discharge the elected candidates for the positions of noble leaders, employees of local administration and court. Historical sources for the research are individual complaints and collective applications of nobility assemblies, reports of governors, and the orders of the Minister of Internal Affairs on the question of elections. Attention is paid to the language features of the texts and the arguments used by the representatives of nobility assemblies regarding their right to challenge the governor’s decisions, even if their position contradicted the operating legal norms. As a result, several interconnected rational and emotional arguments were revealed: the arguments of “honour”, “service” and “general opinion”. The author states that the electoral conflicts in Russia of the last third of the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries, regardless of whether they were the conflicts of values or the conflicts of interests, were a factor of the emergence of elements of the public sphere and proto-institutes of civil society in Russia.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".