THE CITY OF KHARKIV IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE XVIII - THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY: VISIONS OF TRAVELERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses a range of issues related to the descriptions of Kharkiv made by European and Russian travelers in the last quarter of the XVIII – in the first half of the XIX centuries. The basis for scientific research was the travel notes of the British, Germans, French, Russians who visited the region in the specified period of time, in particular: I. Vernet, V. Zuev, V. Izmailov, P. Sumarokov, I. Dolgoruky, J. Kohl, J. Blasius, E. Henderson, A. Ommer de Hell and others. The peculiarity of travel notes is the subjective nature of the descriptions, the lack of a clear structure and unevenness in the presentation of the material. It was found that in travelogues, travelers focus on several aspects related to Kharkiv, namely, the history of its foundation, general descriptions of urban landscapes, features of economic development, etc. In passing, they also covered the ethnic composition of the population. Travelers recorded the conditional division of the city into four parts: City, Podolsk, Trans-Kharkiv, Zalopansk and provided their detailed descriptions. Among the significant shortcomings of the urban space of Kharkiv were: lack of building materials, which hindered the architectural evolution of the city, lack of a navigable river, which slowed down economic development and the establishment of close and stable trade relations with other regions of the empire, lack of arrangement of communication routes, urban space, underdevelopment of the service sector. In passing, they also covered the ethnic composition of the population, which was not given enough attention in the travel notes. Key words: Kharkiv, travel notes, travelers, urban space, economy, ethnographic features.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".