Illustrating Travelogue: Crimea’s History in French Travel Writing of the First Quarter of the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This author of the article analyses the uses of the past of the Crimea and the images of archaeological monuments located in the Crimean Peninsula in French travelogues from the late 1800s and 1810s. This region features a unique concentration of cultural heritage sites of various chronological periods and cultures; its rich history traditionally attracted foreigner writers. By the early-nineteenth century, the travellers had in possession fundamental researches on the history of the Crimea and the North Black Sea Area written in French (or translated into French) by Charles de Guignes, Johann Thunmann, Vicenzo Formaleoni, and Stanislas Sestrencewicz de Bohusz. The travellers could also use the heritage of their forerunners: Charles de Peyssonnel, François de Tott, Charles de Ligne, Jean Reuilly, and others. Therefore, the travelogues under present study, created by Charles Pictet de Rochemont, Paul Guibal, Jacques-François Gamba, and “François Mersier” (Just-Jean-Étienne Roy), use history to play an auxiliary role of vignettes or decoration, which do not have particular value in itself, but is capable of animating the story, making the latter lively and romantic, arising the reader’s interest, and underlining specific and exotic image of the Crimea as the country featuring rich cultural heritage and located between East and West. The research has shown that the travelers sometimes used history for their narrow specific purposes: to substantiate economic projects, to aggrandize the works of one’s patron, or to “reveal” Russia’s aggressive plans for world’s politics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".