MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reports on Gubernia Supervision in the Paperwork System of the Second Quarter of the 19th Century: Materials of the Orenburg Gubernia

2023· article· en· W4390035327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHerald of an Archivist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCentral European and Russian historical studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernorQuarter (Canadian coin)Government (linguistics)DocumentationLocal governmentLawPolitical scienceCivil servantsPublic administrationHistoryEngineeringPoliticsComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the analysis of reports on the gubernia supervision (obozrenie) in the Russian Empire as a special type of reporting documentation, which has not been studied enough. There is comparative analysis of the supervisions of the Arkhangelsk, Vologda, and Olonets governor-general, and Olonets governors of the first quarter of the 19th century. It is concluded that they differed from the annual governor's reports and were regulated by circular law. The article attempts to trace their evolution over the second quarter of the 19th century, considering the gubernia supervision reports a kind of paperwork in the system of “general local supervision” carried out by the governor. Establishment of government inspection (reviziya) as the most important means of control over the local government occurred under Paul I. Since then, there implemented principles and mechanisms of both “higher” (Senate) and general local supervision. Supervisions, as well as Senate inspections (reviziyas), had a common program. Inspector and civil governor, when considering complaints and requests of the gubernia inhabitants, could initiate an investigation into officials’ abuses to remove them from office. The reports’ content coincided with problems of the most faithful governor's reports; the former, however, did not have an established form. As a rule, they were compiled either for structural divisions of local government, or thematically. Personality of the gubernia head, their interests and administrative experience are quite discernible in the reports. In comparison to annual reports, more attention was given to the governor's personal analysis and proposals. Gubernia supervision reports became an important channel of communication, through which the central government received the necessary information on the state of gubernia institutions and could evaluate the activities of the governors. Reports frequency, established by law, was not always respected; it varied with gubernias. In the first half of the 19th century gubernia supervision reports evolved from a variety of governor’s reporting documentation to their inclusion in annual most faithful reports. This was the result of the government policy to unify paperwork, reduce volume of interdepartmental correspondence, and expand methods of covert supervision over local government. The evolution of the gubernia supervision reports did not change their nature.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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