ON THE HISTORY OF THE SECRET POLITICAL POLICE OF RUSSIA IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is a publication of and extended commentary on Mikhail Kirillovich Gribovsky’s text. He was in charge of the Guards Corps’ secret military police service organized in the early 1820s, after the “Semenovsky history”. In 1822, he compiled a note which is kept in the Russian State Military History Archive. The commentary describes the prehistory of the creation of the secret police: Gribovsky’s activities, his brochure On the State of Landlords’ Peasants in Russia and its perception by contemporaries. The article provides general information about the service created by Gribovsky and peculiarities of its financing. It refers to Gribovsky’s note on the Decembrist Union of Prosperity (thanks to it Alexander I had information about this society) and his three more notes, published in the last decades. The author concludes that Gribovsky writes in his note about the attempts to find the Brief Instructions to Russian Knights by M.A. Dmitriev-Mamonov, which were published in 1816 in limited edition and have not been preserved. He gives a brief history of the organization, the Order of Russian Knights, for which this brochure was compiled, and implies that this Order did not exist. Celebrities involved in the project of the Order of Russian Knights are listed. Despite the fact that the note is not signed, the author attributes it to Gribovsky on the basis of handwriting analysis and identifies the likely person behind the abbreviation. The note shows how political police worked in Russia at the end of Alexander I’s reign. For example, the Gribovsky’s interest in the Order of Russian Knights was caused by the assumption that M.A. Dmitriev-Mamonov’s Brief Instructions to Russian Knights were, in fact, a charter of the Union of Prosperity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".