MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REMUNERATION OF OFFICERS OF STATE CUSTOMS SERVICE IN GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA IN LATTER HALF OF XVIII CENTURY

2022· article· en· W4283816182 on OpenAlex
Khoroshevsky Vladimir F.

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueВЕСТНИК Брянского государственного университета · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Cultural Studies of Poland
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemunerationSalaryGuard (computer science)CommissionQuarter (Canadian coin)LawDutyBusinessService (business)FinancePolitical scienceHistoryMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the analysis of the sources of remuneration for customs officers in the Great Duchy of Lithuania in the latter half of the XVIII century. Organizational issues of the State Customs Services in the GDL including the financial provision of customs officers were the responsibility of the Skarbovaya Commission of the GDL. The research leads to the conclusion that the remuneration of the officers was primarily determined based on their position in the Customs hierarchy (counter-registrant, superintendant, intendant, record clerk, chief guard, guard, etc.) and their performance: cost-effectiveness and capacity of customs checkpoints and the workload. Customs officers could be paid not only a fixed amount of a yearly salary but also an additional bonus which was called accidens (from Latin accidens - accidental). An accidens was assigned by the decision of the Skarbovaya Commission and its amount wasn’t regulated by any in-house guidelines. As a rule, it was paid for outstanding day-to-day professional performance and as a reward for honorable service upon retirement. The source of an official pay rise for the performance of Customs officers in the latter half of the XVIII century was a reward for detecting smuggled goods upon customs examination. Its amount initially equated to a quarter of a duty paid by a merchant for transportation of smuggled goods (promyto) and it reached 50% starting from January 1794. For a certain period, large sums of money were accumulated at the customs within the personal responsibility of the head of the Customs as the money from customs duties was transported to the treasury every six months. Such a situation created favourable conditions and opportunities for heads of Customs checkpoints to abuse of official position. Civil servants, having relatively small yearly allowance, often used the collected money for their purposes returning it at the time it was supposed to be transported to the treasury. The article also notes that Customs Service in the GDL in the latter half of the XVIII century presented a special institute in the system of state government and the establishment of a single payment rate for Customs officers of various ranks was definitely an innovation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it