KASHINSKY UEZD IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE XVII CENTURY: TERRITORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В сообщении представлены результаты локализации пунктов - сел, деревень и пустошей, - указанных в Кашинской писцовой книге 1628-1629 гг. и актовой документации первой половины XVII в. Локализации подвергнуты границы Дубенского, Пудицкого, Гостунского станов и Кимрской дворцовой волости. Автор использует методику последовательного сопоставления топонимических данных письменных источников, Топографического атласа Менде и Алфавитов Генерального межевания. Итогом этой работы стала первая в отечественной историографии реконструкция точных границ указанных административных единиц. Предложенная реконструкция отличается от реконструкции границ станов и волостей Кашинского уезда, предложенная Ю.В. Готье. Реконструкция границ станов и Кимрской дворцовой волости реализована в ГИС средставами программы QGiS-Next. The report presents the results of the localization of villages, villages and wastelands indicated in the Kashin scribal book of 1628-1629. and act documentation of the first half of the 17th century. The author reconstructs the borders of Dubensky, Puditsky, Gostunsky staves and Kimry palace volost. The author uses the method of consistent comparison of toponymic data from written sources, Mende's Topographic Atlas and General Survey Alphabets. The result of this work was the first in Russian historiography reconstruction of the exact boundaries of these administrative units. The proposed reconstruction differs from the reconstruction of the borders of the mills and volosts of the Kashinsky district, proposed by Yu.V. Got'ye. Reconstruction of the boundaries of the camps and the Kimry palace volost was implemented in GIS using the QGiS-Next program.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".