MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HISTORICAL PREMISES OF FORMATION OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE IN CONTEMPORARY AZERBAIJAN AT THE PERIOD FROM XIX TO BEGINNING OF XX CENTURY

2017· article· en· W4380143175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nozima Abdullayeva

Bibliographic record

VenueUrbanizm · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman settlementPeriod (music)ArchitectureQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryAncient historyCONQUESTGovernment (linguistics)ArchaeologyGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of the 19th century began a new phase in the history of Azerbaijan. The conquest of this region solved the balance of power in the traditionally Russian-Turkish-Iranian standoff. Began a planned takeover and the Division of the historical territories of Azerbaijani lands along the Araz river resulting in the Northern Khanate was annexed to Russia, and southern remained a part of the Shah’s Iran. Since this period, the administrative structure, as well as the architecture and culture of separated territories, inhabited by a people gets a different development. In the first quarter of the 19th century in Northern Azerbaijan military authorities began topographic fixing of the existing settlements on the ground. The main architectural and construction activities were carried out by military engineers directly engaged in construction of fortifications and their preparations for defense. Thus arose Zagatala, Gakh, Gusar fortresses on the basis of which were later established the towns. To strengthen borders the Tsarist Government resettled here Christian peoples who created new settlements and characteristic itself cultural environment, which in turn was reflected in the regional architecture of 19th and beginning of 20th centuries. Important for the future development of settlements was the activity engineers, architects, scientists, historians, artists coming from Russia who had studied the situation of historical cities and buildings of the region. Self-made urbanistic plans, measurements of monuments, articles, recordings and drawings became important sources for further research in this area. It should be noted that during this period clearly manifest themselves formed for centuries and enriched with new technology traditions of architectural heritage. Original constructive schemes, design patterns, shapes and architectural and decorative elements of buildings, developed over the centuries due to the mined out experience skillfully preserved and applied in the construction of various character of buildings in the regions of Azerbaijan. National architectural trends had been clearly reflected in the works of the prominent Azerbaijani architects, architects and craftsmen who left deep traces in our heritage. Despite annexation of Azerbaijani lands and rigid colonial policies of Tsarism, the process of acceding of North Azerbaijan to Russia and also played historically progressive role in its development. The continuous internecine wars between khans ended and began abolished feudal division establishing of new economic and cultural development began. This period in the development of architecture and construction of the country, despite the difficult political circumstances, was the underlying cause for further economic growth and urban development of modern Azerbaijan. In the new socio-economic conditions broke the old principles of urban planning, new techniques for urban development, and new types of public, civil, industrial, and religious buildings revealed. With the growth and changing composition of the population there has been interference with traditional and new imported Western culture. The historical heritage of the period of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, has today a great importance in the forming of architecture of the cities of modern Azerbaijan.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrbanizmSame topicAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryFrench-language works237,207