Русско-Турецкие Войны и Образование Бессарабской Области 1812-1822: Политика Автономии и Колонизация
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first decade following the annexation of Bessarabia, the Russian authorities simoultaneously pursued two different approaches without fully realizing their contradictions. On the one hand, they sought to win support of the Bessarabian nobility by recognizing their land titles in the former Hotin reaya and proclaiming local autonomy based on the law of the land. On the other hand, they sought to colonize the underpopulated lands of Southern Bessarabia by inviting transdanubian Bulgarians and other ethnic groups. Although both approaches envisioned the transformation of the new province into a new homeland for the co-religionist Balkan peoples, their combination provoked social tensions between the the Bessarabian landowners and the colonists. The paper argues that the prolonged conflict between the two groups ultimately illustrates the uncertainty of Bessarabia’s status in the political geography of the Russian empire during the first decades after 1812. While the regime of the nobility-based Bessarabian autonomy was not unlike various schemes of indirect rule adopted in Russia’s Western borderlands, the invitation of colonists continued the colonization policies characteristic of New Russia. In this respect, the placement of the province under the jurisdiction of the governor-general of New Russia in 1822 emphasized colonization at the expense of local autonomy and prepared the abolition of the latter in 1828.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".