Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment at health resorts in Galicia began in the late XVIth century, but till the end of the XIXth century it did not become popular due to a low service level, a bad road condition and a poor culture of maintenance staff. With the lapse of time smart businessmen and moneylenders built in the areas with mineral water spa health resorts, small summer houses of sanatorium type and rented them for a fee. On the territory of the mountainous part of Galicia more than 500 mineral springs were found, including176 inStanislaviv Voivodeship, 151 - in Lviv Voivodeship and 139 - in Krakw Voivodeship; much less mineral springs were in Ternopil Voivodeship and Silesian Voivodeship. A strong development of the hospitality industry began in the last quarter of the XIXth - the first third of the XXth century. In the 1930s there were 95 health resorts in Galicia, 10 climatic health resorts and spa health resorts were included in the list of the best ones in Poland. There were health resorts of national importance: 2 health resorts - Krynytsia and Burkut; 8 private health resorts - Rabka, Svoshovytsi, Schavvnytsia, Zhehistiv, Ivonich, Rymaniv, Truskavets, Morshyn; 4 commercial health resorts - Krostenko, Mushyna, Pivnichna, Vysova; 3 climatic stations - Yaremche, Zakopane, Vorokhta; 21 small private health resorts and 24 climatic commercial stations. The affairs of health resort industry were managed by the Union of Polish health resorts. Recreation areas were united into three unions: the Union of summer resort counties and the gmina of Krakw Voivodeship, Intercommunal Union of county cottages and health resorts of Stanislaviv Voivodeship "The Eastern Carpathians", the Union of summer tourism counties "Bieszczady" and the gmina of Lviv Voivodeship. Every year about 350 thousand people were treated and over 1 million people were on holiday on the territory of the mountainous part of Galicia.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.284 | 0.154 |
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".