THE BIRTH OF NORWAY IN PRE-PETRINE RUSSIAÕS GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGINATION.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of Norway\'s name in Russian language is traced from the Ancient Rus period to the eighteenth century. In Old Russian texts up to and including the fifteenth century Norway is designated only by the ethnotoponym Murmanskaia zemlia (from the Murmane, i.e. "Norwegians" in the narrow sense, and zemlia "land"). By the sixteenth century, however, this place-name had started to designate an area in the north of the Kola Peninsula inhabited by the Saami. Making claims for this territory in a border dispute with Denmark, the Russian side identified it in the end of that century with Lopskaia zemlia. At the same time, a new name, Norvetskaia zemlia, has been recorded in diplomatic sources since mid-sixteenth century. Although its appearance had probably to do with the fact that the previous name had proved to be "occupied", the very change of the model of nomination instead of naming territory after its inhabitants the name of the "land" as such is loaned possibly reflects a certain change in the way Norway started to be Ôgeographically imagined during the Muscovite period. The modern form Norvegiia has been attested in the Russian translations of European cosmographies at least since the second quarter of seventeenth century (although the form Nordviia also appears in one translated text form the late 16th century).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".