PRACTICE OF MEDIATOR'S COURT IN URBAN SETTLEMENTS OF THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19th CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediation is an integral part of pre-trial conflict resolution. The decrees on me-diation available in the Russian legislation of the 18th–19th centuries regulate the main criteria for functioning of this institution and include such elements as court composition, scope of regulation, terms, etc. The report considers three main laws on the practice of the mediator’s court covering almost a century. The first mention of the term refers to 1727 and used to mean an intermediary. Through time, the mediator’s court undergone changes affecting its social, professional and procedural scope of regulation, and by the beginning of the 19th century it had acquired the features of arbitral tribunal. Despite the complica-tion of legal proceedings, the basic feature of mediator’s court was the unchanging agree-ment of the parties with the candidates for mediators and the decisions they made. The in-cident that happened in Sergiyev Posad demonstrates the use of mediation in practice in the first quarter of the 19th century, and allows us to conclude that mediation is one of the most important components of municipal government, it is historically determined, de-pends on changing real conditions, and is adjusted by life circumstances.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".