FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC OSSETIAN STUDIES OF THE XVIII – FIRST THIRD OF THE XIX CENTURIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье анализируется процесс формирования и развития осетиноведения как направления научных исследований. Фундаментальный вклад в этом направлении принадлежит российским ученым четвертой четверти XVIII – первой трети XIX в. Укрепление связей России с Северным Кавказом в последней трети XVIII в., присоединение Северной Осетии к России в 1774 г. позволило российской науке заложить прочную основу осетиноведения как одной из составных частей научного кавказоведения. Таким образом, можно утверждать, что научное осетиноведение в русской науке берет свое начало с 70-ых гг. XVIII в. Именно с этого времени начинается планомерный сбор различных материалов о жизни и быте осетин, делаются попытки обобщения этих материалов. В статье освещается роль Российской Академии наук в становлении и развитии научного кавказоведения, анализируется вклад участников Академических экспедиций в деле сбора ценного материала о быте, нравах, хозяйстве и социальных отношениях у народов Кавказа, в том числе у осетин. Дана оценка сведениям об осетинах, сообщенных И.А. Гюльденштедтом, П.С. Палласом, В.М. Бакуниным, И. Болгарским, Я. Рейнеггсом, П.Г. Бутковым, А.М. Шегреном, Г.Ю. Клапротом и др.: они отличаются богатством и разнообразием фактического материала, в основном достоверны; дополняя друг друга, дают общую картину. При изучении различных сторон жизни населения авторы вели личные наблюдения, пользовались информацией сведущих лиц – представителей местной администрации, духовенства и других. Точность сообщенных авторами сведений в ряде случаев подтверждается путем их сопоставления с официальными документами и позднейшими литературными источниками. The article analyzes the process of formation and development of Ossetian studies as a direction of scientific research. The fundamental contribution in this direction belongs to Russian scientists of the fourth quarter of the 18th-first third of the 19th centuries. The strengthening of Russia's ties with the North Caucasus in the last third of the 18th century, the annexation of North Ossetia to Russia in 1774 allowed Russian science to lay a solid foundation for Ossetian studies as one of the components of scientific Caucasian studies. Thus, it can be argued that scientific Ossetian studies in Russian science originates from the 70s of the 18th century. It was from this time that the systematic collection of various materials about the life and life of the Ossetians began, attempts were made to generalize these materials. The article highlights the role of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the formation and development of scientific Caucasian studies, analyzes the contribution of the participants of the Academic Expeditions in collecting valuable material about the life, customs, economy and social relations among the peoples of the Caucasus, including the Ossetians. An assessment is given to the information about the Ossetians reported by I.A. Guldenstedt, P.S. Pallas, V.M. Bakunin, I. Bolgarsky, J. Reineggs, P.G. Butkov, A.M. Shegren, G.Yu. Klaproth and others: they are distinguished by the richness and variety of factual material, mostly reliable; complementing each other, give an overall picture. When studying various aspects of the life of the population, the authors conducted personal observations, used information from knowledgeable persons - representatives of the local administration, the clergy and others. The accuracy of the information reported by the authors in a number of cases is confirmed by comparing them with official documents and later literary sources.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".