Quarter Captains and Their Role in Prague’s Municipal: Self-government in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the presented study, the author deals with the question of whether the division of late medieval Prague (or the towns of Prague) into quarters played a political role in addition to its administrative function of tax collection and organization of the militia. In other words, the author seeks to determine whether Prague’s neighborhoods also played a political role, which was the case in several western cities. In studying Prague’s roots, the author became interested in whether neighborhoods served to represent local communities vis-à-vis the town council. The oldest quarter regulations from Bohemian towns date from the beginning of the sixteenth century. The provisions of these regulations mainly concern fire protection, but two other important aspects also appear. The quarter captains also performed the task of social supervision in urban households, and their responsibility was to the burgomaster and not to the quarter’s community. Therefore, in the study, the author works with the hypothesis that quarter self-government in Central Europe was not representative of the residents of the quarter being in communication with the town council, but rather a tool through which the town council gained blanket control over the town’s spaces. A more intensive use of quarter organization headed by captains as well as sergeants and corporals (depending on the number of houses) enabled town councils to change political communication. A functioning quarter administrative network could better fulfil the will of the council than the permanent negotiation for consensus with guilds and other institutionalized communities. Similar terminology, familiar from the more western cities of the empire, thus, in fact, denoted an administrative structure which functioned in a significantly different manner.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".