THE JUDICIAL REFORM OF PETER THE GREAT IN THE CONTEXT OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFORMATIONS (1717–1727)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The judicial reform occupies a special place among other transformations of Peter the Great. Some researchers call it the first attempt to “separate the trial from the administration”. Other scholars believe that the judicial reforms of the first quarter of the 18th century cannot be separated from the management reforms, since the changes in the court and administration were closely related to each other and had common ideological foundations expressed in the works of cameralists. The article is devoted to the analysis of the judicial reform of 1717–1727. The study focuses on the exploration of the organization of the court and “lower” tribunals, originally represented by provincial and city courts. The author characterizes the locations of court and provincial tribunals and considers the main reasons for the creation (or not creation) of judicial districts in provinces. In addition, attention is drawn to the peculiarities of the formation of judicial districts of city judges and judicial commissioners. As a result of the analysis of legal acts and documents of the court’s office, the author concluded that the second provincial reform had a strong influence on the implementation of the judicial reform. Despite the attempts of the Judicial Collegium to distribute judges evenly across the country, judicial transformations spread from the center (St. Petersburg and Moscow) to the southern and eastern periphery. In some cases, the determination of the composition of judges and their placement in judicial districts was inconsistent, which predetermined the partial and then full return of judicial powers to local administrators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".