“On the Designs of Russia”, a Book by Colonel G. De Lacy Evans (1787–1870) and its Place in the Discussion of Anglo-Russian Relations in the Second Quarter of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье рассмотрены некоторые аспекты англо-русских отношений во второй четверти XIX века, а именно дискуссии в британском обществе относительно дальнейших отношений с Россией в условиях начавшейся в 1828 году Русско-турецкой войны. Активность России на Балканах и перспектива распада Османской империи обострили в британском обществе споры о том, какую позицию следует занять Британии в этой ситуации. Часть общественности была убеждена в необходимости немедленного вмешательства в балканские события и противодействия России, которая якобы угрожала сложившемуся балансу сил в Европе. Основные аргументы в пользу этой позиции были обобщены Дж. Де Лейси Эвансом в книге «О замыслах России», которая стала одним из наиболее значимых русофобских трудов в Британии. Эванс систематизировал основные страхи британцев в отношении России и представил собственный сценарий возможного конфликта с ней. Другая часть общественности считала, что угроза со стороны России преувеличена и Британии следует продолжать политику невмешательства ради укрепления своих коммерческих и геополитических интересов. Аргументы в пользу этой позиции можно обнаружить в вышедшей в ответ на книгу Эванса брошюре, автор которой назвал себя Не паникер (Non-alarmist). Эта брошюра стала выражением идей противников конфликта с Россией и втягивания Британии в крупную войну. Колебания между двумя этими позициями стали выражением противоречий внутри британского общества по вопросу взаимоотношений с Россией в период Русско-турецкой войны и в дальнейшем. The article discusses some aspects of Anglo-Russian relations in the second quarter of the 19th century, namely, the discussions held in Britain regarding further relations with Russia in the context of the Russo-Turkish war that began in 1828. Russiaʼs activities in the Balkans and the prospect of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire made British society heatedly argue what position Britain should take in this situation. Some were convinced that immediate intervention in the Balkan events was necessary to counteract Russia, which allegedly threatened the existing balance of power in Europe. The main arguments in favor of this position were summarized by G. De Lacy Evans in his book “On the Designs of Russia”, one of the most significant Russo-phobic works in Britain. Evans systematized the main “fears” of the British in relation to Russia and presented his own scenario of a possible conflict with Russia. Others believed that the threat from Russia was exaggerated, and Britain should continue its policy of non-interference in order to promote its commercial and geopolitical interests. Arguments in favor of this position can be found in a pamphlet published in response to Evansʼ book. Authored by a person who claimed himself to be a non-alarmist, the said pamphlet was an anthem of those who believed that a conflict with Russia could not be beneficial and could get Britain involved in a major war. Further Anglo-Russian relations were largely predetermined by these opposing views
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".