Some Features of the Historical Topography of Samarkand of the 17th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors analyze the main points of the town planning history of Samarkand in the 17th century. On the basis of written data, archaeological sources and unpublished archival materials, a reconstruction of the plan of the central part of Samarkand in the 17th century was carried out. The stages of the archaeological study are analyzed. Based on the observations of the earthworks on the territory of the former citadel of Timur and the ancient Samarkand, it was possible to identify some features of the topography of the administrative center of the city. On the basis of unpublished archival materials, the names of quarters, streets, quarter mosques of the city were revealed and the location of some of them was determined. Unpublished records of the results of archaeological studies on the location of monumental buildings that have not survived to the present in the Registan region are analyzed. Special attention is paid to the topography of one of the sacral centers of Samarkand in the area of the Shah-i-Zinda gates of the city. A hypothesis has been put forward that monumental buildings were built on the territory of the citadel, where with further archaeological studies it is possible to reveal unknown large architectural structures of the 16th –17th 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".