MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402688486 · doi:10.15826/qr.2024.3.909

Markers of the Legal Status of Foreigners in Russia in the First Quarter of the 18th Century

2024· article· en· W4402688486 on OpenAlex
Olga Ermakova

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

VenueQuaestio Rossica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Regulatory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Legal statusPolitical scienceHistoryLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the basic components of the socio-legal status of foreign specialists in Russia in the first quarter of the eighteenth century: citizenship, attitude to the oath (of loyalty to the service, of eternal service), the contract (as a key document that determined not only the conditions of work, but also the position of a foreigner in society, as well as social prestige). During the time of Peter the Great, the concept of citizenship (as applied to foreigners) developed: from identifying citizenship with belonging to the Moscow Church to understanding citizenship as belonging to the state (or the monarch). The author examines the corresponding status characteristics: their legal bases (including procedural and documentary forms of recording subjects’ obligations) and practical significance for foreign specialists. Issues related to the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of Russian citizenship by foreigners are studied in direct connection with other obligatory relations of foreigners with the authorities (the practice of taking the oath of “loyalty to the service”, as well as of “eternal service”). The paper shows the nuances of their interrelationship, similarities and differences with the oath of citizenship. This aspect leads to the problem of the conflict of legal consciousness connected with the different ideas about the rights and mutual obligations of foreign specialists and representatives of state authorities. For foreigners, taking the oath and its form (including the text of the document) were of fundamental importance, became a subject of discussion and served as a reason for entering into dialogue with the authorities. In addition to issues related to the oath, the conclusion of service contracts created a legal contact area for communication between the state and foreigners. During the discussions, the parties managed to reach an agreement on the working conditions of the specialists: the foreigners’ demands to adapt the contractual texts were met. In practice, however, this did not mean the obligatory fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. In the first quarter of the twentieth century, both swearing an oath (for citizenship, perpetual service, loyalty to the service) and concluding a contract remained forms of unilateral obligations of foreigners towards the authorities.

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 score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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