Reasoning about the Masons' support of the monarchical power in Russia in 1817: source analysis
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 object of the study is the text of the manuscript, and the subject of the study is its historical and legal characteristics. Research objectives: 1) establishing the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the information contained therein; 2) establishing the year, author, purpose, completeness and meaning of the source. The article introduces into scientific circulation a monument of political and legal culture of the first quarter of the XIX century, promotes the initial publication of the manuscript belonging to the Russian Freemasons of the first quarter of the XIX century. Based on the original source, the study shows what legal and political ideas were actually spread among Russian Freemasons. The reasoning demonstrates the continuity of the state-legal ideas of the domestic political and legal thought of the XVIII and XIX centuries. Within the framework of the study, a manuscript of the first quarter of the XIX century is published for the first time and the attribution of the manuscript is given for the first time: the establishment of the author, year, authenticity and meaning of the work - "Arguments about the support of the monarchical power in Russia by Masons". The reasoning was recorded by S.P. Fonvizin (1783-1860) from the words of the author – Joseph Alekseevich Pozdeev (1742-1820) in 1817. The reasoning is aimed at supporting the estate monarchy among the Masonic brothers in Russia in the first quarter of the XIX century .The reasoning demonstrates a commitment to social peace based on "good morals" and conscientious performance of class duties. The reasoning is rich in elements of the organic theory of the state and natural-legal argumentation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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