The New Sources on Russian-Korean Contacts in the First Quarter of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the study of new manuscript materials from the collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the relations between members of the Korean diplomatic mission and the Russian Orthodox Mission in Beijing. The letters, written in the first 20 years of the 19th century, contain correspondence between the members of the two countries' missions, which cannot be found in contemporary historical sources. This article is devoted to studying the addressee of the members of the Korean diplomatic mission, putting all the letters in order, and clarifying their historical value in the study of Sino-Russian-Korean relations on the eve of the modern time. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that these manuscripts, closely related to the activities of the great Russian sinologist N. Ya. Bichurin, have not been studied before. According to the content of these letters, Bichurin communicated with the Koreans on the model of educated Chinese people, and one of the purposes of communication between the envoys of the two countries was the acquisition of different information. The relevance of the study is caused by the growing scientific interest of scholars in new manuscript materials about the history of Russian sinology and Russian-Korean relations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".