Evolution of the Concept of Vagrancy in Russian Legislation (from the Second Half of the 17th to the First Half of the 19th Centuries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the evolution of the concept of vagrancy in Russia during the period between the second half of the 17th to the first half of the 19th centuries. A set of legislative acts defining vagrants as a separate social group are analyzed. The stages and causes that underlie the transformation of the concept of vagrancy in the state discourse of the Russian Empire are singled out, systematized, and described. A qualitative shift in the Russian state’s perception and understanding of vagrancy as a multifaceted phenomenon is revealed. Based on the results obtained, it is shown that the evolution of vagrancy unfolded in three stages. In the first stage (from the second half of the 17th to the first quarter of the 18th centuries), this concept had no legal status. In the second stage (from the second quarter to the end of the 18th century), vagrancy was gradually introduced into the official legal space of Russia. The third stage (the first half of the 19th century) was marked by the criminalization of this concept in Russian criminal legislation. The key indicators of this process were the introduction of the passport system, the discussions circulating in the Russian public around the status of fugitive people, the recognition of people «who do not remember their kinship» as a social group, and the efforts to curb poverty. The conclusions drawn contribute immensely to the development of historiographic research, as the concept of vagrancy and its formation have escaped the attention of most scholars and remain insufficiently explored.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".