Gypsies in Siberia (end of the 18th – 20th century)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the Roma in Russia is a poorly studied topic. The article discusses the main stages in the formation and development of the Gypsy community in Siberia during the late 18th – 20th century. The authors came to the conclusion that the main source for the emergence and growth of the number of Roma in the region was migration, in which Belarusian Roma played an important role. On the basis of various sources, a description is given of the measures taken by the authorities in relation to the Roma population, aimed at its homogenisation and integration into the economic and socio-cultural processes in Siberia. However, all campaigns to combat Gypsy vagrancy in the 19th and 20th centuries did not lead to its complete eradication. The repressive steps both in the second quarter of the 19th century and in the 1930s did not help to solve the problem either. Only a part of the Gypsies switched from a traditional to a semi-sedentary way of life. Archival materials from central and regional archives. Most of the documents are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".