Review of the monograph by D.G. Messerschmidt “Diaries: Tobolsk–Tara–Tomsk (1721)” / translation from German by A.V. Moreva. Tomsk, 2021. 132 p.
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
Siberia was known to the Russians long before its actual annexation. In the chronicles of the times of Kievan and Muscovite Rus', there are several references to the campaigns of detachments of Novgorod ushkuiniks beyond Kamen (Ural) with different goals and results. The campaign of Ermak’s squad in the 1580s already marked a large-scale and targeted advance to the East. The first here were the Cossacks and service people. Then came the traders and settlers. The scientific exploration of Siberia began only in the first quarter of the 18th century. Russian Tsar Peter I, during the reforms and the Northern War, recruited various scientists and specialists from Europe to serve. Rapidly developing Russia was in dire need of qualified personnel from various fields of science. This is how the German doctor and natural scientist Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt ended up in our country. It was he who was doomed to lead the first scientific expedition to distant Siberia. The history of this journey through Siberian cities has already been covered in a number of works by such authors as E. A. Kim, Yu. I. Chivtaev, S. R. Muratova, M.G. Novlyanskaya, E.Yu. Basargina, V.S. Sobolev, D.N. Maslyuzhenko and others. In addition, this event is mentioned in foreign scientific literature (Kaltschmidt J.H. Vollständiges stamm- und sinnverwandtschaftliches Gesammt-Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache aus allen ihren Mundarten und mit allen Fremdwörtern. 4. wohlfeile Stereotyp- Ausg. Nördlingen: C.H. Beck, 1854. 1116 S.; Messerschmidt D.G. Forschungsreise durch 1720–1727. Teil I. Tagebuchaufzeichnungen 1721–1722. Berlin: Aka demie-Verlag, 1962. 380 S.) But there are still “blank spots” in the study of the history of the first scientific expedition to Siberia. In this regard, the purpose of this review is to identify new material that can be very valuable for further research into the biography of the famous German scientist and the history of the beginning of the scientific development of Siberia. The text of the monograph provides a lot of interesting information of various kinds. These are ethnographic, linguistic, geographical data. Most of them became available to a wide range of researchers for the first time. The monograph allows us to imagine everyday life of the local population in western Siberia at the end of the reign of Peter I through the eyes of a foreigner. The main sources used by the author of the monograph are the following works of foreign and domestic specialists: Messerschmidt D.G. Forschungsreise durch Sibirien 1720–1727. Teil I. Tagebuchaufzeichnungen 1721–1722. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag; 1962. Kim E.A. Messerschmidt. Diaries. Tomsk – Abakan – Krasnoyarsk. 1721–1722. Abakan: Cooperative Journalist LLC, 2012. – 160 p; Messerschmidt D.G. Diaries: from Mangazeya to Irkutsk (1723). / Editor, compiler Yu.I. Chivtaev. Irkutsk: On Chekhova, 2018. – 266 p. They provide quite extensive information about various aspects of life in a remote Siberian province of the vast Russian empire. At the beginning of the 18th century, this harsh region was still virtually unexplored land for scientists. Historians, botanists, geologists, and geographers had yet to figure out how this vast territory would develop in the coming years. Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt was destined to become a pioneer in science here. Therefore, the new work of A. V. Moreva, dedicated to the activities of this German scientist, should become a new step forward in the study of the history of Siberia. The monograph can be useful as another source for historians, ethnographers and anyone interested in the history of their native land.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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