On the development of Russian artillery as a type of weapons and equipment in the late 16th century – the first quarter of the 19th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topicality of the study of the development of artillery as a special type of weapons and equipment in connection with artillery science in the past years of the Russian history is justified by the historical connection with the current state of science in general and with the development of military equipment and industry. The experience of establishing ways of developing scientific thought and solving certain tasks for the development of artillery weapons can be used to determine the directions and forecasts of further development of weapons and military organisation as a whole. The author believes that the main purpose of his work is an attempt to study some aspects of the artillery weapons development history in relation to the state of Russian industry, technology and scientific knowledge in the late 16th century – the first quarter of the 19th century. The article focuses on the fact that in the early 19th century, in the Russian artillery, a number of measures were carried out, primarily aimed at improving the material part of field artillery. It is established that comparative data of the field artillery of the Russian army with the artillery of certain European states show that the former, in the first quarter of the 19th century, had high technical and combat qualities; it was in no way inferior to the best French artillery at that time and was significantly higher than the Prussian, Austrian ones as well as ones of a number of other states. The author comes to the conclusion that the metallurgical plants of Russia, involved in manufacturing artillery weapons, had a relatively developed foundry and more advanced technical equipment than the metallurgical plants of the previous period. This in turn made it possible to provide the artillery of the Russian army with materiel and shells of higher quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".