Tauragės valda Lietuvoje Prūsijos rankose (1691–1793): savito statuso vaizdavimas XVIII amžiaus žemėlapiuose | The Tauragė Estate in Lithuania under Prussian Ownership (1691–1793): The Depiction of its Distinct Status on 18th-Century Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Janusz Radziwiłł (1612–1655), the Voivode of Vilnius and Grand Hetman of Lithuania, managed to acquire the Tauragė estate on the Lithuanian border with Prussia in the early 1650s, it was just before his death. His granddaughter Ludwika Karolina (1667–1695), who inherited the titles from his daughter Anna Maria (she passed away at an early age), was raised in Berlin and married the son of the Elector Friedrich Wilhelm (1620–1688) there in 1681. The Elector of Brandenburg decided to use this connection to renew his claim to the Tauragė estate (his father Georg Wilhelm had sold it in 1639). In 1688, Ludwika Karolina signed a document in Potsdam renouncing her inheritance rights to the Tauragė estate in favour of the Elector, and this was confirmed in 1691 by a court in Lithuania. Manfred Hellmann, who published a study on Prussian control of Tauragė in 1940, revealed the ambiguity that arose as a result: although Tauragė continued to belong to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was in fact controlled by Prussia, whose monarch became the owner of private land in the Commonwealth and had to pay the usual taxes and duties there. The article examines whether or not this political ambiguity was reflected in the depiction of the Tauragė estate on 18th-century maps. The research shows that this depiction was equally ambiguous: while some maps showed Tauragė as a part of Prussia, others did not emphasise the connection at all, continuing to show that the estate belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".