Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, many publications presenting the records of sejmiks (regional assemblies in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) from the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries have appeared on the publishing market, and teams of historians from several research centres are working on new ones. Instructions for deputies to the Sejm and other resolutions of sejmiks are the fundamental sources for studying many aspects of the social and political life of the noble Commonwealth. Also, military historians use this type of source. However, the question arises whether the publishers of such sources include all the material related to the activity of the sejmik that would be of interest to researchers of martial history. On the other hand, a question can be asked whether they reach for sejmik records and can use them in their research into Old-Polish military science. In this case, the aim is to present the value of published sejmik records in studies of various aspects of the functioning of the Crown and Lithuanian armies and soldier life. Their fundamental importance for showing the mechanisms of the functioning of the noble levy (Polish. pospolite ruszenie, i.e. mass national conscription) seems obvious, but is it worth using them when researching problems related to the functioning of the so-called quarter army (Polish: wojsko kwarciane) or the comput army (Polish: wojsko komputowe)? The author also tries to analyse the scope of the material contained in published collections of sejmiks records. The purpose is to assess whether the sources related to the sejmiks’ activities in military matters are complete or whether the researchers compiling and editing these publications omit certain materials which may be important to historians of Old-Polish military science.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".