Mikhail Konstantinovich Sidorov and the Role of Norwegians in the Opening up of the Northern Sea Route to Siberia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the authors examine the activity of the Russian public figure, the goldmining entrepreneur and employer M.K. Sidorov and his relationship with Norwegian shipowners and marine mammal hunters, engaged in sealing and walrus hunting in the area around Novaya Zemlya and in the Kara Sea.In the 1860s and 1870s M.K. Sidorov tried to carry through a largescale project for the opening up of the Northern Sea Route to Siberia ("the Kara Sea Route"), in the course of which he encouraged Norwegians to take part in his plans for developing this sea route.At the same time he was worried about and warned the Russian government against the economic expansionism of the Norwegians in Russian waters.Sidorov did not succeed in establishing a partnership with the Norwegian marine mammal hunters.Nevertheless, in the course of their constant search for sea mammals they unintentionally came to contribute their mite to the realisation of this project, because they through their crossing of the Kara Sea in all directions effectively shattered the myth that existed at the time in maritime circles about the unnavigability of the Kara Sea.M.K. Sidorov did not succeed in opening up the Northern Sea Route to Siberia, but his efforts were not in vain.He was the first to put his question on the agenda in Russia, and already by the end of the 19 th and beginning of the 20 th century followers appeared, among whom were Russians (Vice admiral S.O.Makarov, mayor of the city Yeniseysk S.V. Vostrotin and others), as well as Norwegians (among them the entrepreneur and businessman Jonas Lied, and the polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen).Together they moved the Northern Sea Route to Siberia a long step forward in the direction of a feasible sea route -on the eve of the Russian revolution of 1917.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".