Economic Development of Siberia during Reforms of Peter I: Craft and Emergence of Industry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The features of the industrial development of the Siberian region at the end of the 17th — the first quarter of the 18th centuries are studied. The analysis of legislative and clerical, statistical sources, generalization and systematization of the results of research in the field of development of the Siberian handicraft and manufacturing production of the late 17th — first quarter of the 18th centuries made it possible to identify the degree of influence of Peter I’s reforms on this process. It is concluded that in the period under review, the main form of industrial production in Siberia was small-scale handicraft production, in many sectors of which progress was observed, due both to the improvement of the technological process and to the regulatory orders of Peter I of a national and regional nature. It is noted that in the complex of transformative undertakings, Peter I paid special attention to Siberia, although in some cases the regulatory provisions of the royal decrees regarding certain types of handicraft production did not give much effect in the region, as was the case, for example, with the decrees of 1715 on the prohibition of tanning leather without the use of blubber and the manufacture of narrow linen and hemp cloths. The most significant government decrees with a regional focus on crafts related to stone building and river shipbuilding. The authors of the article show that an important result of the reform activities of Peter I was the development of large-scale manufactory and factory production in Siberia.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it