MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correspondence of F.V. Bulgarin and K.F. Kalaydovich

2023· article· en· W4387011429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterary Fact · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Quarter (Canadian coin)HistoryCommissionSt petersburgClassicsLawPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the first time, the correspondence of the writer, journalist, publisher Faddey Bulgarin with the historian and archeographer Konstantin Kalaidovich is published in full. The article introduces into scientific circulation their letters for 1822–1824, mainly devoted to the materials of the historical St. Petersburg journal “Northern Archive,” the publication of which was undertaken by F.V. Bulgarin. K.F. Kalaidovich, who lived in Moscow, was an experienced employee of the Archive of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and the chief superintendent of the Commission for the Printing of State Letters and Treaties. He helped the journal with the communication of valuable documents on the history of medieval Rus’ and the Moscow kingdom of the 15th–17th Centuries, having prepared more than 10 publications for the “Northern Archive” in five years. Kalaidovich also acted as an intermediary between Bulgarin and his fellow historians, members of the “circle” of a patron of art, fascinated by national history, Count N.P. Rumyantsev. The publication touches upon the issues of organizing historical research, the controversy around the “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin, journal policy in Russia in the 1st quarter of the 19th century, and payment for journal publications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1490.072

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiterary FactSame topicLibrary Science and InformationFrench-language works237,207