Учреждение и развитие византийской фемы в Таврике
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naumenko V. E. Setting up and Development of Byzantine Phema in Tauride \n \nThe conditions of the rise and evolution in the structure organs of power of Byzantine thema in Taurica are considered in this article. These problems cannot be solved without realizing the status of Taurica as a part of Byzantine Empire and general foreign policy situation in the Northern Black Sea Coast. By the beginning of the 8th century Byzantium maintained its supremacy over the mountainous and seashore regions of Crimea, the structure of governing them assumes the form of archontia. During the 8th century due to Khazar expension only Cherson and its neighbourhood were under its control. In the beginning of the 9th century due to weakening of Khazaria Byzantium tried to strengthen its influence in this region establishing thema. The evolution of governing had the tendency to increase the rights of stratig, and from the last quarter of the 9th century he became an absolute ruler of the region. The crisis of thema system in Byzantium affected Taurica manifesting itself in rising some themas on its territory and introducing the system of katepanat in the end of the 10th – 11th centuries. Since the end of the 11th century there is no evidence of sources about Byzantine thema in Taurica, that could be connected with its disappearing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".