1760-1825년 러시아의 대영 무역정책의 변화와 영국의 원자재 확보의 다변화
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to illuminate the changes and results of Russian trade policies toward Great Britain. The Russian government offered many privileges to the English merchants trading with Russia in the eighteenth century. They made up roughly a half of Russia's total export and activated the russian economy, giving the credit to the Russian merchants. But when they held a hegemony in the Russian trade, the Russian government adopted policies of containment toward Great Britain. It abolished some privileges enjoyed by the English merchants in the Russian trade. Their privileges were transferred to other the foreign merchants. Paul I put ar: embargo on the British ships and Alexander I discontinued trades with Great Britain, participating in the Napoleonic Continental Blockade. Great Britain was in need of the raw materials and semi-manufactured products from Russia for her own industrial growth as well as ship-building. But the English merchants began to look for the substitutes for the raw materials from Russia, as the prices on the Russian goods rapidly soared, and the trade conditions became more difficult during the latter part of the eighteenth century. In general Great Britain succeeded in the development of the Canadian forests and could increase the self-production of iron and linen, although she was not in a position to lid her reliance on the Russian commodities. In case of hemp and flax Great Britain was unsuccessful in finding out the substitutes for the Russian ones, but could get these precious raw materials by using the neutral ships. The Russian policies of containment toward Great Britain were not to increase its own commercial ships, not to open up the new markets overseas, but to strip from the English merchant of the privileges in Russia. In the result Russian trade policies coincided in aristocratic class.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.012 |
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".