FINDS OF THE «SMOLENSK TYPE» IN THE NORTH-wEST OF THE RUSSIAN PLAIN: TO THE STUDY OF THE FORMATION OF MEDIEVAL RUSSIAN CULTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье рассматриваются находки металлических украшений, которые в российской археологической литературе обычно связываются с культурой смоленских длинных курганов и часто интерпретируются как «балтские», «балто-славянские» или «славянские». Часть таких предметов, найденных на Северо-Западе Русской равнины, действительно связана своим происхождением с культурой смоленских длинных курганов (серповидные височные кольца, круглая бляха с пуансонным орнаментом из Старой Ладоги). Однако большая часть «смоленских» предметов относится к набору металлических украшений, сложившемуся в последней четверти I тыс. и общему для лесной зоны Восточной Европы (перстнеобразные височные кольца с завитком наружу, головные венчики из рядов пронизей и обойм, трапециевидные привески с пуансонным орнаментом). Обращает на себя внимание отчетливый параллелизм типов украшений, употреблявшихся в Юго-Восточной Прибалтике и Волго-Окском бассейне. The article discusses the metal ornaments, which in the Russian archaeological literature are usually associated with the culture of the Smolensk long mounds; they have often been interpreted as «Baltic», «Balto-Slavic» or «Slavic». Some of these items found in the North-West of the Russian Plain are indeed connected by their origin with the culture of the Smolensk long mounds (so called sickle-shaped temporal rings, a round plaque with a punched ornament from Staraya Ladoga). However, most of the «Smolensk type» items belong to the set of metal ornaments that developed in the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD and is common for the forest zone of Eastern Europe (ring-shaped temporal rings with a curl outside, headband from rows of metal tube beads and clips, trapezoidal pendants with a punched ornament). There is a clear parallelism of the types of jewelry used in the South-Eastern Baltic and the Volga-Oka basin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".