RUSSIA’S PUBLIC SPHERE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY: FROM PRIVATE PETITIONS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE “HOUSE OF PRACTICAL JURISPRUDENCE”
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it