Transcript of the Roundtable “The Horde-Bazar: Nomadic Horde or Nomadic City”. Differentiated understanding of history. Roundtable of the series “Phenomenon of the Golden Horde” (13th May, 2014. Kazan, Institute of History of AS RT) »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
13th May 2014, a round table “The Horde-Bazar: Nomadic Horde or Nomadic City?” has been held as part of the series “The Phenomenon of the Golden Horde”. The round table was attended by I.M. Mirgaleev, D.M. Iskhakov, I.L. Izmaylov, R.M. Valeev, E.G. Sayfetdinova, A.I. Bugarchev, as well as graduate students and applicants of the Usmanov Center for Research of the Golden Horde History. Head of the Center, I.M. Mirgaleev, opened the event by proposing to discuss such questions as: whether the Horde-Bazar was a city? Or a nomadic horde of khan? How researchers should treat information of the sources? M.S. Gatin noted the need to more clearly define the concept of “nomadic city” and “nomadic horde”. Maybe, it was the mere Horde’s mention in Russian chronicles? In turn, I.L. Izmaylov suggested that Russian sources do not necessarily understand Sarai under the term of “Horde”. The Horde might be the common name of the travel scope of Russian rulers. D.M. Iskhakov noted with regards to the concepts and definitions, that the terms “Horde-Bazar” and “Horde” did not necessarily mean the same concept. Moreover, we see in the sources that there was a post of “the prince of bazar” who ran this institution (bazar) within the Horde. E.G. Sayfetdinova noted that Ötemish Hajji mentions in his “Chingiz-name” the term of the Horde-bazar. He says on the election of Timur Malik as new khan that when he came to the throne, there was delivered a sermon in the Horde-bazar. R.M. Valeev stressed that it is important to pay attention to the minting of coins for the determination of the Horde-bazar. If in the 13th century the name of the “Horde-bazar” is absent, then in the 14th century it is mentioned as a center of coinage. A.I. Bugarchev added that in the 13th century there was one concept of “Horde” and in the 14th century the “Horde” appears on coins. We still do not know whether it was one or more mints. So, when we talk about the Horde-bazar, it is necessary to clarify what period we mean. In the final part of the event there was defined range of problems that can be offered to debate aimed at holding such meetings regularly. Thus, the roundtable participants noted the need for close mutual cooperation of scholars to solve the problematic issues concerning the history of the Golden Horde.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.018 |
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".