Portraying the Local Life? Gendarme Control in the Grand Duchy of Finland and the Gendarme Reports from the “Periphery,” 1866–1881
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".