The main street of Tver’: the history of renaming in the context of ur-ban-building and socio-cultural
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like any city, Tver’ has its own main street, and given the fact that the time of the foundation-capital of the Upper Volga goes into the Middle Ages, and the formation of its main urban «highway» took place several centuries ago. This street existed during the period of the independent Tver’ Principality, but the earliest documentary evidence of it dates only to the 17th century. Then this street was called «Big Moscow». From the second half of the XVII century schematically it began to fix the cartographers and on the plan of the first quarter of the XVIII century we already have a quite clear idea of this magistral. Its curvilinear, medieval-oriented character persisted until the 1760s when Tver’ after the fire of 1763 was reformed based on the «regular» town planning decision. Since then, the late medieval street name has been removed from the city toponymy. There is a Tverskaya perspective, although for some time there is a synthetic name – Great Tver’ Prospect. Later, in gratitude for the exceptional care in restoring the city after the fire, the head-street of Tver’ began to be called Ekaterininskaya street. An attempt to change this name was made in the early 1810s Prince G. Oldenburg in his time as Governor-General of the Tver’ Governorate. However, the new name of the main street of Tver’ – Millionaire – did not exist enough. It went out of circulation a few years after the death of Oldenburg (in 1812). As a result, they returned to Yekaterininskaya street again, and in the 1870s. Perhaps because of the increasing wealth of most of the residents of this street, it was again called Millionaire. It remained so until the end of the 1910s. After the revolutionary events of 1917, it was renamed Soviet.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".