Development of the Caucasian Borderland by Russian Empire (Late 18th — Early 60s of the 19th Centuries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the subject of research is the process of turning the Caucasian borderland in part of the territory of the Empire during the last quarter of 18th — the early 60s of 19th centuries, the settlement and economic development of Caucasus and Ciscaucasia, the creation of material resources for operating in the region by Russian troops. The methodology of this study is based on historical-genetic and comparative-historical methods, which allowed us to consider the historical dynamics of the process of creating social and economic foundations for the spread of Russian power in the Caucasus border region. As conclusions and results, we can conclude that the objects created during the development of the territory of the Caucasian border area include villages, villages and cities, hospitals, anti — epidemic cordons, equipped Caucasian mineral waters, active agriculture-arable farming and cattle breeding, as well as roads and post offices. All these efforts of the Russian authorities made it possible to turn the Caucasian borderland into a part of the empire. The field of application of the obtained results can be educational and scientific works on the history of the Caucasus region and the history of the marginal policy of the Russian Empire.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".