The Crisis of Khan Power in the Junior Horde of the Kazakhs (second half of the XVIIIth – first quarter of the XIXth centuries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of the political situation that developed on the territory of the Junior Horde of the Kazakhs in the second half of the 18th -the 1st quarter of the 19th century.After the death of Khan Abulkhair in 1748, the struggle for supreme power intensified in the Steppe.The weakening of traditional power relations in the Junior Horde of the Kazakhs causes to a major uprising led by the batyr Syrym Datov.During the studied period, the murders of khans Yesim Nuraliev, Zhantore Aishuakov took place.The assignment of Shergazy Aishuakov as the ruler of the Junior Horde by the Russian Empire intensified the internecine struggle for power between the Chingizids from Abulkhair's clan.The rivalry between Khan Shergazy Aishuakov and Sultan Aryngazy Abulgaziev, intervention and "heating up" of the conflict by the Orenburg military governor P.K. Essen led to confusion in the capital.Created in 1820, the new "Asian Committee" was supposed to determine the fate of the legitimate Khan Shergazy, as well as decide on a change in the rule of the traditional potestar-political structure of the nomads.At the meetings of this Committee, the issue of the fate of the Kazakh Chingizid Aryngazy Abulgaziyev, who was elected as Khan by representatives of the Kazakh society's many tribes, was decided.The authors comes to the conclusion that it was not possible to solve this problem at that time, as evidenced by the fact that Sultan Aryngazy was sent into exile in Kaluga in 1823 and the liquidation of the Khan's power in the Junior Horde soon followed, in 1824.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".