РУССКО-КАБАРДИНСКИЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ В 60-70-Е ГГ. XVIII В.: ИСТОРИОГРАФИЯ КОНФЛИКТА
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Начиная с конца XVIII в. Россия кардинально меняет свою политику на Кавказе. Именно с этого периода она в основном сосредоточила свои усилия на расширении южных границ и постепенной интеграции горских народов в состав империи. Изменения в российской политической линии привели к неизбежному столкновению интересов России и Кабарды. Исследование показало, что к последней четверти XVIII в. в военный конфликт на Центральном Кавказе были втянуты не только кабардинцы, но и закубанские черкесы, ногайцы и чеченцы. В отечественной историографии события 1778-1779 гг. рассматриваются как поворотный момент в русско-кабардинских отношениях и, несомненно, представляют научный интерес. Since the end of the XVIII century. Russia is fundamentally changing its policy in the Caucasus. It was from this period that she mainly focused her efforts on expanding the southern borders and the gradual integration of the mountain peoples into the empire. Changes in the Russian political line led to an inevitable clash of interests between Russia and Kabarda. The study showed that by the last quarter of the XVIII century. not only the Kabardians, but also the Trans-Kuban Circassians, Nogais and Chechens were drawn into the military conflict in the Central Caucasus. In Russian historiography, the events of 1778-1779 are considered as a turning point in Russian-Kabardian relations and are undoubtedly of scientific interest. XVIII бI. Йуьххьехь дуьйна Россис буххера дуьйна хийцира шен Кавказера политика. ХIетахь дIадолийра къилбехьара дозанаш шордар, цо кхоьллира Россин а, ГIебартан а дуьхьдуьхьаллаттар. Талламе гойту цу конфликта йукъа гIербартойа, ногIий а, нохчий а озийна хилар. Исторнографино 1775-1779 ш.ш оьрсийн-гIебартойн йукъаметтигаш ирйалар гойту.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 it