RUSSIA’S PUBLIC SPHERE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY: FROM PRIVATE PETITIONS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE “HOUSE OF PRACTICAL JURISPRUDENCE”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the author’s interpretation, a concrete-historical study of the process of formation of Russia’s public sphere in the first quarter of the 19th century is possible based on complex analysis of the specifics of socio-communicative practices accompanied by the emergence of relatively independent from the state communities of Russian subjects. The article, as one of the topical issues that contributed to the emergence of a space for discussion and appealing to the institutions of power with complaints, petitions and projects, considers the question of the need to provide Russian subjects with the opportunity to defend themselves against arbitrary behaviour of officials and unlawful decisions of the courts. In the context of the existing practice of publishing various letter writing guides, “general secretaries”, “sudobryadniki” and other reference publications, as well as the relevant norms of the current legislation, it reveals the ideological and organisational foundations, methods of interaction and the state’s reaction to a “public lawyers” community created by I. Naumov. It is concluded that, despite the short period of its activity, the “House of Practical Jurisprudence” became one of the important “assembly points” of public sphere institutions. The study suggests that the “nodal points” of public communication in the first quarter of the 19th century could arise not only on the initiative of the ruling elites or the monarch, as it was in the 18th century, but also as a result of the public activities of private individuals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".