Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russia’s expansion in the Baltic region in the 18th century was neither an obvious nor historically justified direction. It was Peter I who abandoned the expansion to the south and east in favor of the west. The rise of Russia’s power on the Baltic was linked to the decline in importance of the 17th‑century powers blocking its path to Europe: Sweden, the Polish‑Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Ottoman Empire. When Peter I the Great took power Russia had no access to either the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea or the Sea of Azov. However, thanks to Peter I’s consistent policy and the actions of subsequent Russian rulers, during the 18th century Russia not only gained access to the Baltic Sea, but also conquered several strategically important ports and became the largest naval power in that area. A symbolic confirmation of the change in the direction of Russian policy in the 18th century can be the transfer of the capital of the state from Moscow to St. Petersburg in 1712. St. Petersburg was a “window on Europe”for Russia and the wide access to the Baltic Sea enabled Russia to influence the fate of the whole of Europe. This article tries to identify the most crucial moments and events that determined the success of Russian policy on the Baltic in the 18th century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".