Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors investigate the religious affiliation of the French Quarter’s inhabitants in 1716–1720 and determine the confessional composition of the French Diaspora of St. Petersburg under Peter I. The relevance of this study is determined by the contradictory data that historians provide regarding the composition of the Petersburg foreign population. The authors solve the problems on the basis of hired French specialist’s lists, a list of the French Quarter residents and a wide range of non-Orthodox parishes’ documents. The article provides personal data of a large number of French natives in Petersburg in the Peter the Great era. This study is based on the method of descriptive statistics. All church documents reflecting the personal composition of the French colony were examined by the method of continuous name-by-name study with the fixation of each person’s belonging to a particular parish. The lack of data on all the mentioned persons required the authors to turn to the extrapolation method. The article concludes that in the era under study, Catholics definitely prevailed among St. Petersburg Frenchmen with a clarified religion. Individuals of the Protestant faith could live in the French Quarter, and certainly were associated with it, but did not influence its religious specifics. This suggests that the French Quarter was not Huguenot, but Catholic.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".