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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olga Ermakova

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaestio RossicaSame topicLegal and Regulatory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207