MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367332974 · doi:10.5406/28315081.25.2.04

Portraying the Local Life? Gendarme Control in the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Gendarme Reports from the “Periphery,” 1866–1881

2022· article· en· W4367332974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marina Zagora

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Finnish Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuchyEmpirePeriod (music)HistoryPoliticsQuarter (Canadian coin)Ancient historyLawGovernorEconomic historyClassicsPolitical scienceArchaeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There has been a rise in recent years in research of the Russian Imperial Gendarmerie, that is, the secret or political police. However, there is no study on the case of Finland. Moreover, the gendarme system in the Grand Duchy of Finland during the period of the Great Reforms in the Russian Empire and the time of Governor General Nikolay Adlerberg (1866–1881) in Finland is almost completely unexplored. Osmo Jussila is one of the few historians to have examined the topic and did archival research based on gendarme reports. Continuing this tradition, and based on understudied archival documents, this article reconstructs the diverse and multitiered microcosm of “Russian Finland” through the eyes of a specific actor, in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. This article argues that during the period 1866–1881, the chief of the Gendarme Administration in Finland, August Tobiesen (1810–1885), was well aware of many events that took place in the grand duchy, especially in its capital Helsinki (Helsingfors). He did not assert that there had been no troubles or incidents in this special part of the Russian Empire. Tobiesen wanted to objectively reflect the situation on the ground in the grand duchy in his reports.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Finnish StudiesSame topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207