CHRONOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY OF YENISEYSK’S WOODEN MONUMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays in Yeniseysk more than seventy diverse wooden architecture monuments have been preserved. The time of their construction remains debated. On the basis of a comprehensive (dendrochronological, historical and architectural) study, a chronological typology was created, according to which wooden structures (residential buildings, outbuildings and some government buildings) were grouped into four chronological types: I — structures of the first quarter of the 19th century (izbas, five-wall houses on a high utility basement with a hip or pyramidal roof with small windows that retained the features of the Russia’s North tradition); II — structures of the late 1860s — early 1890s (post-fire eclectic two-storey buildings with a glazed gallery on the second floor of the side extension and outbuildings attached to them); III — buildings of the 1890s (government wooden buildings and one-two-storey residential buildings with a glazed gallery on the second floor, which differ from the second type in less expressive design features (cornice platbands, etc.)); IV — buildings of the early 20th century (one-storey buildings with the bright saw-cut decoration of platbands and cornice). A separate group was made up of objects with more archaic features (compared with the obtained dendrochronological dates), which preserved old traditions. The proposed chronological typology made it possible to detail the town-planning processes of Yeniseysk. The methodological arsenal developed in the work is expanding and deepening the research potential of trends in Siberian wooden urban construction study towards the end of the 18th — beginning of the 20th century. The developed methodological approach has a significant research potential for the chronological attribution of Siberian wooden urban construction in the late 18th — early 20th centuries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".