Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first part of the article deals with the habitation names of countries, regions, cities, manors, and villages, collected in Estonian Ingria by linguist Julius Mägiste in 1922 from Finns and Ishorians. Two country and region names are one-part toponyms (Soikkola, Suomi ‘Finland’), two of them have the generic word maa ‘country’ (Vennääm maa ‘Russia’, Virom maa ‘Estonia’), while the others have Finnish puoli ‘district, neighbourhood < half’ (Maanpuoli ‘district towards S.-Petersburg’, Soikkolam puoli ‘Territory of the Soikkola Peninsula’, Suomen puoli ‘Finland’, Vennääm puoli ‘Russia’, Virom puoli ‘Estonia’). Among the town names of Ingermanland, only toponyms denoting the capital Petteri ‘S.-Petersburg’ of the former province and the county centre Jaama ‘Jamburg, now Kingisepp’ are recorded. Only the town names Jovi ‘Jõhvi’, Narva, Pakari ‘Narva-Jõesuu’, and Rakkvuori ~ Rakkvuoro‘Rakvere’ of the north-eastern part of Estonia are registered. The names of two Estonian-Ingrian manors (Izhorian moisio ~ moiso) Iittova ~ Iittovan moiso and Paikkovan moiso are discussed. Both toponyms are derived from anthroponyms. Fourteen alphabetically arranged names of Estonian-Ingria villages are studied. Each name is accompanied by the Estonian, Finnish and Russian equivalents used today, as well as interesting name forms from documents and maps of previous centuries. In addition, the article also deals with the village names *Alakülä, *MVlVkatko ~ *MVllVkatko, which disappeared in the 18th century. When explaining the etymology, village names are also compared with similar toponymies of neighboring areas (Estonia, Finland, Karelian isthmus). The following toponyms are / may be derived from anthroponyms: Hanikke, Ilkkina (< Russian), Kalliviere ~ Kal´livere, Karstola ~ Karstalo, *MVlVkatko ~ *MVllVkatko ja ?Väikülä ~ Väükülä (külä ‘village’). The other determinants of Estonian-Ingrian comonyms are related to common nouns: *Alakülä < ala- ‘lower’, Kulla(n)külä < kulta ‘gold’, Räkälä < räkä ‘brushwood’ or ‘mud, mire’, Saarkülä < saari‘island’, Smolkka < Russian смола ‘tar’, Vanakülä < vanha ‘old’. The second part of the article will focus on the village names that were known to the inhabitants of Estonian Ingria outside this region, as well as the farm names.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.259 | 0.170 |
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".