Административно-территориальные преобразования на Европейском Севере России в последней четверти XVIII – начале XIX в. (на материалах Вологодской губернии)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В статье рассматривается формирование административно-территориальных единиц на территории Европейского Севера России в последней четверти XVIII – начале XIX в. На материалах Вологодской губернии предпринята попытка охарактеризовать предложенную в ходе губернской реформы 1775 г. модель административно-территориального устройства и проанализировать, насколько она соответствовала местным условиям и соотносилась с системой управления, какие проблемы вызывала и каким образом их предполагалось решить. Документы, обнаруженные в государственных архивах Архангельской, Вологодской и Ярославской областей, позволили увидеть особенности преобразуемой территории и их влияние на процесс выделения административно-территориальных единиц и формирования административных центров. Показано, что созданное в ходе губернской реформы 1775 г. огромное Вологодское наместничество, охватывавшее три обширных области, вызвало трудности в управлении уже в первые годы существования, что попытались решить путем преобразования Архангельской области в отдельное наместничество. В период правления Павла I административно-территориальное устройство губерний было пересмотрено, в результате чего появилась Вологодская губерния, разделенная на десять уездов, среди которых выделялись уезды, по занимаемой площади сопоставимые со многими губерниями Центральной России. Губернский центр располагался на юго-западной окраине губернии и был значительно отдален от многих уездных городов. Автор приходит к выводу, что оформившееся административно-территориальное устройство оказалось неудобным с точки зрения управления, что непосредственно отражалось на деятельности местных учреждений, замедляло делопроизводство и затрудняло контроль за действиями уездных чиновников, способствуя процветанию злоупотреблений в отдаленных уездах. The article studies the formation of administrative and territorial units in the European North of Russia in the last quarter of the 18th – early 19th century. Based on the materials from Vologda Governorate, the article attempts to characterize the model of administrative and territorial structure proposed during the 1775 Governorate reform as well as analyze its suitability for local conditions and its relationship with the system of governance. The article also studies the problems caused by the reform and the proposed solutions. The documents found in the state archives of Arkhangelsk, Vologda and Yaroslavl oblasts made it possible to identify the features of the reformed territory and their impact on the formation of administrative units and establishing administrative centers. It has been shown that the huge Vologda Viceroyalty, which was created during the 1775 Governorate reform and included three vast regions, caused administrative difficulties even in the first years of its existence. Those difficulties were attempted to be solved by transforming Arkhangelsk Oblast into a separate viceroyalty. During the reign of Paul I, the administrative and territorial structure of the governorates was revised, resulting in the creation of Vologda Governorate, which was divided into ten uyezds. Some uyezds were comparable in size to many governorates in central Russia. The center of the governorate was located on its southwestern outskirts and was significantly distant from many of the uyezd towns. The author concludes that the established administrative and territorial structure turned out inconvenient for administration and affected the operation of local institutions, slowed down records management, and made it difficult to control the uyezd officials, contributing to the flourishing of abuse in remote uyezds.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".