Russia's Attitude to the “Armenian Issue” in the Ottoman Empire in the last quarter of the 19th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In article, the evolution of the "Armenian issue" in the Russian foreign policy agenda is analyzed.The authors has demonstrated how the problem of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was evolving during the last quarter of the 19th century was transforming into a serious international agenda associated with the Eastern question.The necessity of reforming the Armenian vilayets administration was included in various geopolitical contexts of the Russian Empire foreign policy, such as the use of the Black Sea straits, ensuring the security of the Caucasian periphery, maintaining the integrity of the weakening Ottoman Empire.Russian diplomacy came to the need to put pressure on the Sultan under the influence of two factors: on the one hand, the Armenian revolutionary movement intensified and the number of refugees from Turkish Armenia raised, which threatened to destabilize the Caucasus, on the other hand, the British became more active in the Ottoman Empire and the number of their consulates grew, which was also negatively perceived by the Russian side.In the article, a comparative study of the political approaches of Great Britain and Russia to the "Armenian issue" is carried out.For the British in the 1880s this question was not raised, for the Russian central and regional authorities it existed and was connected with the security of the Caucasus.Because of the complexity of the political situation in the Ottoman Empire Russia faced up with a dilemma.Turkey was needed weak, but preserved in its borders.The collapse of a huge and complex state at the very borders gave rise to enormous difficulties for Russia.At the same time, there were implicit talks about the possible connection of Western and Eastern Armenia at a distance future.A. Nelidov was an eager supporter of strengthening links between the two groups of the Armenians, including with the help of the spiritual center -Etchmiadzin.He proposed a whole range of measures, which in modern international relations are called "soft power": strengthening cultural, religious and educational ties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".